JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a second appeal filed by plaintiffs against Judgment and decree passed by learned additional Commissioner, Faizabad dated March 5, 1974 allowing the appeal, setting aside the Judgment and decree dated May 7, 1971 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Class, district Barabanki regarding share of plaintiff No. 2 and respondent No. 2. 2. Plaintiff-appellant No. 1 originally had filed the suit for division of holding under Section 176 of Act I of 1951 claiming ?rd share in plot Nos. 855 and 881 of village Surajpur Khapraila, Pergana Pratapganj, Tahsil and District Barabanki alleging defendant No. 1, now respondent No. 1, to have ?rd share. Ram Swarup, plaintiff-appellant No. 2 was impleaded by amendment dated April 2, 1971. The plaint allegations were that the corresponding plots of the present plots in suit were purchased by Ram Manohar and Ram Sumriran, songs of Ram Swarup and defendant Bhagwati on April 24, 1959 from one Surajbali in equal shares; that Ram Sumiran died and had been inherited by his father Ram Swarup, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to ?rd share in the land in suit and the defendant No. 1 it entitled to ?rd share in it. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 on the grounds that Ram Manohar and Ram Sumiran had jointly purchased half share and the had purchased half share and they had paid the considerations accordingly; that he is in possession over half share; that the share of Ram Sumiran was inherited by plaintiff Ram Manohar and the plaintiffs have got half share only. By amendment it was pleaded that during consolidation operations the share of plaintiff No. 1 and his share was half and half and they were so recorded during consolidation operations and it was always so admitted by the plaintiffs, therefore, the suit was barred by estoppel and by Sections 27 and 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 4. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial court holding that plaintiff No. 2 had inherited Ram Sumiran and as only plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 were recorded and their share were not defined the claim of the plaintiff was not barred in any way. 5. 4. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial court holding that plaintiff No. 2 had inherited Ram Sumiran and as only plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 were recorded and their share were not defined the claim of the plaintiff was not barred in any way. 5. The First appellate court has held that as during consolidation operations only plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 are recorded, only they have got equal shares and the claim of Ram Swarup who did not file any objection during consolidation operations whose name was not recorded in not entitled to claim any share and plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 only are entitled to equal share in the land in suit. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The main quest for determination is whether the claim of plaintiff appellant No. 2 was barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act or not because it has been found by the courts below concurrently that the land in suit was purchased by plaintiff No. 1, as his brother Ram Sumiran and defendant No. 1 Bhagwati jointly in equal shares and they had equal shares and that Ram Sumiran was inherited by his father Ram Swarup and according to trial court the claim of Ram Swarup was not barred by provisions of C.H. Act and according to first appellate court it was barred and as only plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 were recorded during consolidation and Ram Swarup had not filed any objection, therefore, his claim was barred and both the recorded persons namely plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 have got equal shares as their shares were not defined by the consolidation authorities. 8. 8. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ram Swarup had filed objection under Section 12 of the C.H. Act but it was not decided, therefore, his claim is not barred as there is apparent error in the record of rights prepared by the consolidation authorities and the entries made under Section 27(2) are not conclusive but are rebuttable per amendment of 1963 and reliance has been placed on (1) (sic) A.W.R. 585, (2) 1978 R.D. 89, (3) 1978 R.D. 226 and it has been also argued that the ruling reported in (4) 1979 A.W.C. page 16 (Revenue) is not a good law in view of ruling Nos. (1) and (2) and at least is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. It has been argued that the bar of Section 49 of the C.H. Act is applicable as Ram Swarup had applied with defendant No. 1 on September 1, 1962 under Section 12 of the C.H. Act for being recorded in place of Ram Sumiran deceased and as only plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 were recorded under Section 27 of the C.H. Act which became final, their shares will be deemed to be equal. Reliance has been placed on (5) 1978 A.W.C. page 1, (6) 1978 R.D. 48, (7) 1977 R.D. page 340, (8) 1977 R.D. 331, (9) 1973 R.D. page 375. It was further argued that plaintiff No. 2 was not recorded in revenue papers. Therefore, when he was impleaded by amendment the suit did not remain only a suit for division but also became a suit for declaration and as the State Government was not made a party which is a mandatory party, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed and reliance was placed on (10) 1972 R.D. page 76. 10. From the perusal the aforesaid ruling No. 1 and 2, 7 and 8 it is clear that if the title of the parties in the land in dispute has been determined in a proceeding under Section 12 as amended by Act 8 of 1963; the decision in the proceedings are final and conclusive between the parties and cannot be challenged. From the perusal the aforesaid ruling No. 1 and 2, 7 and 8 it is clear that if the title of the parties in the land in dispute has been determined in a proceeding under Section 12 as amended by Act 8 of 1963; the decision in the proceedings are final and conclusive between the parties and cannot be challenged. The result is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act only if the matter was adjudicated under Section 12 of the C.H. Act otherwise not. Even in Chaubey Ram Swarup v. Luxmi Narain, 1979 A.W.C. 16 (Revenue) the learned Member has held that the jurisdiction of the revenue or Civil Court is barred to question the correctness of any adjudication made by consolidation authorities. He has never meant nor has expressed that if no adjudication was made by the consolidation authorities even then the bar of Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act will apply. I humbly prefer to disagree with his observations in para 8 of that ruling "that the Consolidation Authorities concern have not applied their mind to the facts of the case such a finding would fall within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court but not within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court" and particularly regarding a case where no adjudication has been made by the Consolidation authorities at all. The learned brother Member appears to have observed as above under a misconception that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court was in a writ case which was reported in 1976 A.W.C. page 586. That ruling is regarding a second appeal. Any way in the present case no adjudication was made by the Consolidation Authorities under Section 12 of the C.H. Act, although objection was filed regarding succession after the death of Ram Sumiran by his father Ram Swarup. Although that application appears to have been also signed by Bhagwati for adjudication of matters related to changes mentioned in Section 12 of the C.H. Act. Provisions of Sections 7 to 11 shall mutatis mutandis apply per its sub-section (2) and if no adjudication was made under Section 12 of the C.H. Act, in my considered opinion the bar provided by Section 49 of the C.H. Act will not be attracted. 11. Provisions of Sections 7 to 11 shall mutatis mutandis apply per its sub-section (2) and if no adjudication was made under Section 12 of the C.H. Act, in my considered opinion the bar provided by Section 49 of the C.H. Act will not be attracted. 11. The controversy whether entries in C.H. Form 23 or C.H. Form 45 are final as reported in ruling No. 6 and 6-A is not in controversy in the present case, therefore, I do not propose to deal about them. 12. It is admitted case of the parties that plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 were recorded co-tenants of the plots in suit by Consolidation authorities. The Consolidation authority did not decide the respective shares of the parties and the holding was allowed to remain joint and the consolidation authorities did not define their respective shares. In such cases the respective shares of the parties can therefore, be decided in a division suit plaintiff No. 2 being father of Ram Sumiran who had purchased jointly the plots in suit with plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 was admittedly preferential heir of Ram Sumiran after his death per Section 171 of Act I of 1951 then plaintiff No. 1 being brother of the deceased. There is no dispute about it. Defendant No. 1 is at the last number among heirs mentioned in Section 171 being father's son's son. The provisions of Section 175 of Act I of 1951 are not applicable to the present case, therefore the defendant No. 1 did not inherit the share of Ram Sumiran who had admittedly purchased ?rd share in the plots in suit as has been concurrently held by both the courts below. Therefore, the rulings that if the share is not defined the recorded co-tenants will have equal share will not apply to the present case in any way. Therefore, the rulings that if the share is not defined the recorded co-tenants will have equal share will not apply to the present case in any way. Tirkha Singh v. Kalu Ram (supra) mentioned above as ruling No. (9) does not help defendant No. 1 in any way because in that case regarding plots of 5 suits which were ancestral holding in which Kalu Ram was also recorded with Tirkha Singh who was not a legitimate son of the father of Tirkha Singh, the claim of Tirkha Singh was held to be barred under Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act but in that every case Kalu was not allowed to inherit from his mother being her illegitimate son in preference to her legitimate son Tirkha Singh. Therefore, in my considered opinion defendant No. 1 did not inherit any share from the share of Ram Sumiran deceased in the disputed plots and is entitled to no share in the share of Ram Sumiran merely by having been recorded with plaintiff No. 1 and as the claim of plaintiff No. 2 was not barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act. He being father of Ram Sumiran inherited his ?rd share and is entitled to it. 13. Therefore, in view of the above in my considered opinion the appellate court interpreted the legal position erroneously and came to a wrong conclusion and its findings are liable to be set aside and the findings of the trial court are liable to be confirmed. 14. The last argument on behalf of the respondent had been relying on 1972 R.D. page 76, that because Ram Swarup was not recorded and he was impleaded by amendment as plaintiff No. 2, the division suit under Section 176 of Act I of 1951 was converted also to a declaratory suit under Section 229 of Act I of 1951, therefore, the State Government became a necessary party in the suit and the suit is defective for not impleading it. This plea was not taken either in the trial court or in the first appellate court. No cross appeal has been filed but it being a legal plea was allowed to be argued and was considered. This plea was not taken either in the trial court or in the first appellate court. No cross appeal has been filed but it being a legal plea was allowed to be argued and was considered. It is to be noted that plaintiff No. 2 has died during the pendency of this appeal and his name has been deleted, his son plaintiff No. 1, is already on the record and has been inherited by plaintiff No. 1, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the case for impleading the State Government and to prolong the litigation because in the circumstances the original position of the suit being only under Section 176 of Act I of 1951 has been revived because plaintiff No. 1 is a recorded tenant of the disputed plot with defendant-respondent No. 1. 15. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed with costs. The Judgment and decree of the first appellate court are hereby set aside and the Judgment and decree of the trial court are confirmed by the modification that the share of plaintiff No. 1 in the disputed plots is held to be ?rd and that of defendant No. 1 is held to be ?rd only.