JUDGMENT : R.M. Sahai, J. The facts giving rise to this writ petition directed against the order of the consolidation authorities in brief are that the land in dispute was mortgaged by the Petitioners in favour of one Udit Narain Singh and it was got redeemed in 1354F. The father of the opposite parties Balli was entered in 1356F, in Zaman (10) and continued to be recorded in 1359F. as well. In 1362 F. he was entered as sirdar. The Petitioners filed a suit u/s 63/180 of U.P. Tenancy Act which was decreed on 28th June, 1948. The decree was ex-parte. After the enforcement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act I of 1951 they again filed a suit u/s 229-B which was ultimately abated u/s 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. During consolidation proceedings they claimed to be bhumidhars and prayed for expunction of the entries in favour of opposite parties. The objection was dismissed by the consolidation officer but in appeal the order was set aside and it was held that the opposite party being entered in 1356 F. with a duration of 3 years his occupation seems to have started at a time when the mortgage was in force. Prom this he inferred that the land was let out to the opposite parties by the mortgagee. As Balli was Sub-tenant of mortgagee he did not acquire adhivasi rights. He was further of the opinion that the ex-parte decree dated 28th June, 1948 may not have the force of resjudicata but it certainly operated as estoppel. This order was set aside in revision and the Deputy Director found that Balli continued in possession since 1356 F. He set aside the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation that the land was let out by Udit Narain to Balli as this was never the case of the Petitioners in the objection. Moreover he found that as the mortgage had been redeemed in 1354 F. and Balli was entered in 1356 F. he cannot be considered to be a Sub-tenant of mortgagee. In respect of the ex-parte decree the Deputy Director examined the summons and recorded a finding that Balli was never served and this ex-parte decree had neither the effect of resjudicata nor estoppel. In respect of the ex-parte decree the Deputy Director examined the summons and recorded a finding that Balli was never served and this ex-parte decree had neither the effect of resjudicata nor estoppel. He further found that the decree, having not been given effect to in revenue record cannot be successfully taken advantage by the Petitioner. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners reiterated the argument advanced before the consolidation authorities that the ex-parte decree even if did not operate as resjudicata has the force of estoppel and the opposite party cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own default. The argument cannot be accepted as it would have operated as estoppel against Balli if summons was served on him. For the applicability of the principle of estoppel the essential ingredient is that the person against whom estoppel is pleaded.must have represented and due to representation the person claiming estoppel must have altered his position. In view of the finding that the summons were never served and that the decree was never given effect to in revenue records and that Balli had no knowledge of it, it cannot be said that Balli conducted himself in a manner which would give rise to estoppel against him. 3. It was then argued that Balli being a Sub-tenant of a mortgagee he was not entitled to adhivasi rights. Reliance has been placed on Pulloo and Another Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U.P. and Another, AIR 1976 All 343 . For the applicability of this decision the first essential is that it should be found whether Balli was a Sub-tenant of the mortgagee. The finding of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, that Udit Narain let out the land to Balli has been set aside by the Deputy Director. The reason for setting aside the finding is that the Petitioner never pleaded this case and further the entry having been started in 1356 F. the occupation did not start during the period of mortgage. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director does not appear to suffer from any manifest error of law. The mere fact that the period of duration was shown as 3 years cannot lead to a conclusive inference that the land was let out to Balli in 1354F. It was for the Petitioner to establish by cogent evidence that Balli was a Sub-tenant of a mortgagee. The mere fact that the period of duration was shown as 3 years cannot lead to a conclusive inference that the land was let out to Balli in 1354F. It was for the Petitioner to establish by cogent evidence that Balli was a Sub-tenant of a mortgagee. The finding of the letting by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was based on no evidence but on an inference which was not sustainable in law. The Petitioner has not filed any document along with the writ petition to satisfy that there was any evidence on the record to show that the land was let out to Balli by Udit Narain. The argument, therefore, that Balli was Sub-tenant of mortgagee cannot be accepted. The principles laid down in 1976 AWC 240 are, therefore, inapplicable to the facts of the case. 4. The learned Counsel then argued that the Deputy Director has not recorded any finding that Balli was in possession on the date when Act XX of 1934 came into force. According to him an adhivasi became sirdar under this provision only if he "as or was deemed to be in possession on the material date i.e. the date when Act XX was enforced. He maintained that for the applicability of the provision there should have been finding that the opposite party was in lawful possession in 1954. He has relied on Burhan Singh v. Nabi Bux 1969 R.D. 407 and has urged that the Supreme Court while construing word 'held' in Section 9 of UP ZA and LR Act held that it connotes lawful possession. And the same meaning should be assigned to the word 'held' in Section 240-B. He has emphasised that unless the person who claimed to be adhivasi was found to be in lawful possession in 1954 he could not be held to be sirdar. The argument is misconceived as all those persona who acquired adhivasi rights under the principal Act or the supplementary Act were declared to be sirdars in 1954. For declaration of sirdari rights what was essential was that a person should be adhivasi which in it turn depended on applicability of Section 20 or Section 3 of the supplementary Act. If a person was a recorded occupant or a Sub-tenant or a tenant of sir under the principal Act or he satisfied the condition of the supplementary Act he became sirdar by operation of law. If a person was a recorded occupant or a Sub-tenant or a tenant of sir under the principal Act or he satisfied the condition of the supplementary Act he became sirdar by operation of law. the possession or deemed possession of such adhivasi was lawful on the date, Act XX of 1954 was enforced. 5. In the end the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Explanation II and III to Section 20 of UP Z A and LR Act and argued that the effect of exparte decree dated 28-6-48 was that the entry in 1356 F. recording opposite party as recorded occupant shall be deemed to have been corrected. Reliance was placed on Nanhun Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1973 All 360 and Subhana v. D.D.C. 1975 RD 77. The question does not appear to have been raised before the consolidation authorities nor was any foundation laid in the writ petition. Even otherwise on facts found there is no substance in the argument. The certified copy of the exparte decree was produced during argument, The suit was filed by the Petitioner u/s 63 of U.P. Tenancy Act for declaration of his status. It was granted and he was held to be sir and khudkasht holder. The correction in the revenue records could have been only to this effect. The Learned Counsel for Petitioner admitted that the name of the Petitioner was always shown as sir and khudkasht-holder. There was therefore no question of correcting the entry. In the order there is no finding regarding Balli. Moreover the suit was decreed in 1355 Fasli. From the order of the consolidation authorities it is clear that the first entry in favour of Balli was made in 1356 F. In it the duration shown was three years. This was not believed by the Deputy Director. There was thus no entry in 1355 F which required to be corrected. The exparte order could not affect subsequent entries, unless it was proved that the entry of 1356 F. was based on 1355 F. entry which has been corrected. Apart from all this both in Nanhu and Subhana case it was held that a declaratory decree requires correction in the record and once a decree has been passed it shall be presumed that official work has been carried out in accordance with law; as such the entry shall be deemed to be corrected. Apart from all this both in Nanhu and Subhana case it was held that a declaratory decree requires correction in the record and once a decree has been passed it shall be presumed that official work has been carried out in accordance with law; as such the entry shall be deemed to be corrected. This presumption stands rebutted in the present case as the Deputy Director has found that the decree was never given effect to. The suit contemplated by Section 63 of the U.P. Tenancy Act is a suit seeking declaration of the status by the landholder or the tenant. The suit was filed by the Petitioners. They sought a declaration of their status which was granted by the revenue court and they were held to be sir and khudkast holders. The order was to enter their names in the revenue records. The order did not direct correction of the name of the opposite party. The entry therefore in 1356 F in favour of opposite parties stood untouched. It was not corrected nor could it be deemed to have been corrected as the decree passed by the competent court did not require a correction. 6. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.