JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow in appeal No. 219/64/475 of 1969-70 arising out of a suit under section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 3. Respondent No. 1 Gokaran had filed a suit for division of holding which has been decreed by both the courts below. Sheo Bhajan, who was one of the defendants in the suit has come up in second appeal. 4. The main ground taken in the appeal is that section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars the suit, but not to defence and the courts below have erred in law in holding otherwise. I find that the Consolidation of Holdings has taken place in the village and in C.H. Form 45 the name of the appellant as well as the plaintiff-respondent Gokaran have been recorded as co-Sirdars, the courts below have taken the correct view that the adjudication of rights by the Consolidation authorities is now final and cannot be looked into by the revenue court. Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act reads as follows:- " 40. Bar to Civil Court jurisdiction - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land by lying in an area, for which it (notification) has been issued (under sub-section (2) of section 4), or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which this Act shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." A reading of the section makes it clear that section 49 applies both to the claim of a plaintiff as well as that of the defendant. 5. The second ground taken in the appeal is that as the defendants Nos. 5. The second ground taken in the appeal is that as the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had pleaded extinction of the rights of the plaintiff respondents by adverse possession amounting to ouster, the rights of the parties had to be determined with reference, to the date of the suit and the courts below erred in law in determining the rights of the plaintiff with reference to the period of consolidation. This ground also has no force. The Courts below have held that the consolidation closed in the year 1964 i.e., 4 years before the institution of the suit on July 6, 1968. The Courts below have taken the correct view of the law that the period of adverse possession can be counted only after the consolidation and even if the defendants were in adverse possession for this period which does not exceed 4 years they will not acquire any rights it is an accepted principle of law that all adverse possession is washed away as a result of consolidation and if any adverse possession is claimed after consolidation its period will commence from the date of close of consolidation operations. 6. The 3rd ground taken is that no oral evidence was admissible to prove that the village was notified under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act, This ground is not correct. It was open to the parties to produce the gazette notification or other documentary evidence under section 52, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, but if none of the parties produced such evidence, oral evidence of Munna Lal, who was a witness of the defendant-appellant himself about the close of the consolidation operation is relevant and it cannot now be challenged by the appellant himself. 7. Another ground taken in this appeal is that the suit was not maintainable and was bad for non-joinder of Jag Mohan Lal and Chandra Bnal brother of the appellant. This ground has no force. Neither Jag Mohan Lal nor Chandra Bhal are recorded as tenure-holders in the land and, therefore, it was not necessary to implead them. The plaintiff had duly impleaded all the persons who are recorded as tenure-holders. Thus the suit was quite maintainable. 8. The appellant has also challenged the findings of the facts of the courts below. I, however, find that these findings are based on a proper consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff had duly impleaded all the persons who are recorded as tenure-holders. Thus the suit was quite maintainable. 8. The appellant has also challenged the findings of the facts of the courts below. I, however, find that these findings are based on a proper consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence. There is no justification for interference with these concurrent findings in second appeal. 9. I find no force in this second appeal and hereby dismiss it.