JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.11.1974 passed by Ld. Additional Commissioner. Jhansi Division allowing the appeal decreeing plaintiff's suit holding him to be sold bhumidhar of land in suit: in Appeal No. 130/238 of 1972 district Jhansi, against judgment and decree dated 25.9.1972 passed by judicial Officer (R) Lalitpur, district Jhansi in a suit under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 dismissing the plaintiff's suit. 2. Plaintiff-respondent Jalain filed the suit claiming to be sole tenant of the plots in suit on the basis of inheritance to his real brother Raj Dhar, who died two years back issue less: that he is in possession as bhumidhar, that defendants no. 3 to 5 have no concern with the land in suit nor they are heirs of Raj Dhar, that they are sons and daughters of one Bhaggan of village Barhai Bujurg. Tahsil Niwari, that they got fictitious entries in their names in the village records by the lekhpal in their collusion. Alternative relief for possession was also asked. 3. The State contested and denied the claim of the plaintiff and alleged that defendants 3 to 5 are bhumidhars in possession. 4. The suit was contested by defendant 3 also alleging to be daughter of Raj Dhar and also by defendants 4 and 5 alleging that the plaintiff is not brother of Raj Dhar that they were adopted by Raj Dhar and were adopted sons of Rajdhar and are his heirs. 5. The trial court held defendant no. 3 to be daughter of Rajdhar and that defendants 4 and 5 were not adopted sons of Raj Dhar and were sons of Bhaggan and that the plaintiff was heir of Raj Dhar being his real brother but as defendants 3 to 5 were in possession, he was entitled to no relief and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 6. The first appellate court held that the plaintiff was brother of deceased Raj Dhar and was a preferential heir to Ram Bai a married daughter and that defendants 3 to 5 were not co-tenants from inception of tenancy with Raj Dhar sanad to them was wrongly issued as co-bhumidhars with Raj Dhar and mere entry did not operate as estopped against the plaintiff. 7. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. 7. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that the courts below inspit of evidence on record wrongly held appellants no. 2 and 3 not to be adopted sons of Raj Dhar. It was further argued that no issue was framed that defendant no.3 was a married daughter of Raj Dhar at the time of his death, therefore, findings of both the courts that she being a married daughter was not a preferential heir to the plaintiff cannot be upheld as defendant no. 3 was taken by surprise and was prejudiced. It was further argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellants were co-opted by Raj Dhar as co-tenants and Sanad bhumidhar was obtained also in their favour and they are recorded from 1357 fasli all along, therefore, they became co-tenants with Raj Dhar who was estopped to deny their co-tenancy and as the plaintiff claiming through him is also estopped and thus they became co-tenants by estopped and acquiescence. Reliance has been placed on Bhagwan Ram v. State of U.P., 1967 R.D. Page 396. Smt. Jangi v. D.D.C. U.P. Kamp at Jaunpur, 1972 R.D. page 96 and Mewaram v. Shanker, 1974 R.D. (Supp.) page 95. 9. It was argued in reply that adoption of two sons is invalid according to paragraph 485 of Mulla's Hindu Law and according to L.L.R. 12 Calcutta 406 (P.C.) and I.L.R. 19 Calcutta 513 (P.C.). In reply it was further argued that parties had led evidence and the finding that defendant no. 3 was a married daughter was based on it, hence it is not liable to be set aside. In reply it was further argued that appellants were not co-tenants from very inception of tenancy with Raj Dhar, therefore, sanad in their favour was illegally issued and grant of sanad is not final and conclusive; that cooption by a tenant in the absence of permission and consent of the landholders in writing is illegal and that mere entry is not enough for creating co-tenancy right, that estoppel and acquiescence was not pleaded specifically and further more at best the possession even if found of defendants-appellants could not be deemed to be adversed and no rights can accrue to them. Reliance has been placed on Ramayan Singh v. Balbhadra Chaubey, 1966 R.D. page 416. Reliance has been placed on Ramayan Singh v. Balbhadra Chaubey, 1966 R.D. page 416. Ragho Ram v. Ram Swarup, 1968 R.D. page 133 (D.B.O.)(H.C.). Lurkhur v. Jhuri, 1972 R.D. page 271 at 12. Durga v. Smt Chhoti, 1974 R.D. (Suppl.) page 76 Gurcharan v. D.D.C., 1974 R.D. page 382. Chhiddas v. Jt. Director of Consolidation, 1968 R.D. page 205 (H.C.). 10. In 12 I.L.R. Calcutta page 406 (P.C.) the following note of the book published by Shyam Charan Sarkar the author of the Vyavastha Darpan. It is called the Vyavastha Chandrika, in Volume II page 115 of the Precedents, was cited with approval. "It may on the whole be safely concluded that whatever may have been the law or the practice in former ages, the simultaneous adoption of two sons or the affiliation of one by a person who has a son (either his own issue or adopted) living, is now illegal according to the concurrent testimony of the most approved authorities". It has been held in the above mentioned rulings Nos. 4 and 5 that the law did not allow two simultaneous adoptions and, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the alleged simultaneous adoptions of defendants 4 and 5 was illegal. It is also borne out from the perusal of the testimony of the D.Ws that the ceremony of giving and taking in adoption was also not proved, therefore the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the defendants 3 and 5 were not adopted sons of Raj Dhar requires no interference and they are hereby confirmed. 11. The second argument about non-framing of the issue regarding defendant No. 3 being married or not in my considered opinion when both the parties have lead evidence and the matter was decided by both the courts below it is not open to the appellants to agitate this matter in this fashion. Further more para 10 of the written statement of defendant 3 clearly shows that defendant no. 3 was married and had become widow. The testimony of Chhotey Raja D.W. proved beyond any doubt that the defendant no. 3 was married by her father Raj Dhar 4 years prior to the death of Raj Dhar. Further more para 10 of the written statement of defendant 3 clearly shows that defendant no. 3 was married and had become widow. The testimony of Chhotey Raja D.W. proved beyond any doubt that the defendant no. 3 was married by her father Raj Dhar 4 years prior to the death of Raj Dhar. She was rightly held to be married daughter of Raj Dhar by both the courts below when she herself in her written statement had pleaded to be married and to be widow no question of framing an issue that whether she was married or not existed. The argument on her behalf, therefore, that she was taken by surprise and could not adduce proper evidence has got no legs to stand and fails. The findings of both the courts below that she was married daughter of Raj Dhar and therefore, was not preferential heir of Rajdhar in preference to his real brother plaintiff is hereby confirmed. 12. The findings of both the courts below that the plaintiff-respondent was the real brother of Raj Dhar was not challenged and is hereby confirmed. 13. The main question now for determination is whether appellants 1 to 3 i.e. defendants 3 to 5 acquired co-tenancy rights by estopped and acquiescence and whether grant of sanad to them was proper and legal or not. 14. In my considered opinion Sanad was wrongly issued in favour of defendants 3 to 5 because there was no consent in writing of either the plaintiff or of Rajdhar who were recorded co-tenants of the disputed plots which was sirdar plots as is clear from the khatauni of 1356 Fasli. Further more there was no written consent of the land holders as required by Section 33 of U.P. Tenancy Act of 1939. Section 3-B of Act No. X of 1949 authorised only as co-tenant to make application. In the present case defendants 3 to 5 were admittedly not co-tenants from the very inception of the tenancy, therefore, they could not have applied for grant of he sanad and could not have acquired any privilege under Act No. X of 1949 as has been held in ruling No. 7 mentioned above. It has been held in relying ruling no. It has been held in relying ruling no. 6 mentioned above that:- "The grant of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, or the issue of the bhumidhari sanad,does not finally and conclusively determine the rights of the person granted the declaration or the bhumidhari sanad. The grant of the declaration under Section 6 does not determine the right and title of the person, nor is such declaration final and conclusive in the sense that his right or title can be challenged before the courts of law." Therefore, it will be seen that in the present case there was no consent of the landholders in writing as required by Section 33 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and there was no consent of the recorded co-tenants for grant of the sanad in writing as required by Section 3-B (2) of Act No. 10 of 1949 which runs as follows:- 3 B(2) "No application under sub-section(1) shall be granted unless the tenants whose names are recorded in the records of right give their consent in writing". No such consent in writing either of plaintiff or of Rajdhar who were recorded co-tenants has been proved in this case. Such consent from both of them was very essential for granting the sanad to defendants 3 to 5 with Rajdhar. Thus I have no hesitation to hold that Sanad was not legally granted to defendants 3 to 5 i.e. present appellants no. 1 to 3 and they were wrongly recorded as co-bhumidhars with Rajdhar. 15. Now the question remains whether the appellant 1 to 3 i.e. defendants 3 to 5 acquired co-tenancy rights with Rajdhar by estopped and acquiescence or not. Ruling No. 2 mentioned above i.e. 1972 R.D. page 96 is not applicable to the present case because in that case parties under the compromise in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. agreed to remain in possession in the proportion of half as co-tenure-holders. It was that they became co-tenants by admission. It is now well settled law as held in Doodh Nath Koori v. Smt. Dhanraja, 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) page 458 relied on in ruling no. It was that they became co-tenants by admission. It is now well settled law as held in Doodh Nath Koori v. Smt. Dhanraja, 1954 A.W.R. (H.C.) page 458 relied on in ruling no. 1, 1967 R.D. page 396 and it was held that section 33 of U.P. Tenancy Act of 1939 and Section 23 of Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 will not be against the acquisition of co-tenancy rights by estoppel or even by adverse possession, This ruling no. 1 is one not very much helpful in the present case because in that case the names of the two co-tenants remained entered in the revenue records and the co-tenants or their heirs remained in joint possession of the land for over 18 years therefore, it was held that they had acquired co-tenancy by virtue of their names being recorded in the revenue papers for a very long period and also being in possession. In the present case the names of defendants 3 to 5 was wrongly recorded as co-bhumidhar and co-bhumidhari Sanad appears to have been granted without the written consent of the recorded co-tenants and they should not have been cooped as co-tenants as there was no written consent of the landholders also. In ruling No. 3 mentioned above i.e. 1974 R.D. page 95 the property of maternal grandfather came in possession of the daughter's son who asserting himself as a co-tenureholder remained in possession for more than 12 years to the knowledge of all concerned therefore it was held that he acquired co-tenureholder's right by prescription. In the present case it is not so, hence this ruling is also not applicable. In ruling No. 8 mentioned above i.e. 1972 R.D. page 271 at paragraph 12 it has been held that mere entry of the name in the papers for some time will not create estoppel. It was also held in ruling no. 9 mentioned above 1974 R.D. page 76. "The mere recording of the name of the person in revenue papers from 1363 fasli onwards will not vest him with any rights because he has not filed a single receipt for payment of rent". In the present case there is no evidence of possession on behalf of defendants 3 to 5. No rent receipts have been filed by them. "The mere recording of the name of the person in revenue papers from 1363 fasli onwards will not vest him with any rights because he has not filed a single receipt for payment of rent". In the present case there is no evidence of possession on behalf of defendants 3 to 5. No rent receipts have been filed by them. Defendant No. 3 did not dare to come in the witness-box who could have been heir of Rajdhar if she would not have been married. The defendant did not claim adverse possession they at best would have claimed possession with the consent of Rajdhan if he would have given his consent in writing for grant of sanad which could not be proved on behalf of the defendants 3 to 5 i.e. plaintiffs 1 to 3. In all these circumstances in my considered opinion the appellants 1 to 3 i.e. defendants 3 to 5 have failed to prove to have acquired co-tenancy rights with Rajdhar by estoppel or acquiescence. 16. In view of the above in my considered opinion the findings of the Ld. Additional Commissioner on the aforesaid points was well considered and cannot be interfered in this appeal which are hereby confirmed. There this appeal has got force and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 17. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Additional Commissioner are hereby confirmed.