JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member - This is an appeal filed by Ram Kishan against the order and decree dated December 2, 1972 passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff Ram Kishan filed a suit under Section 229-B, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the defendant-respondents seeking a declaration that he was a co-tenant along with defendants No. 1 and 2. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that plaintiff was not a co-tenant; that the suit was barred by Section 34(5) of Specific Relief Act and also by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. After recording evidence the trial Court gave a finding that plaintiff was a co-tenant with contesting defendants and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendants preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and held that the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal before the Board. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the courts below. 4. It is not disputed that originally the land belonged to one Kripal, who was entered over it in Settlement 1308 Fasli. Thereafter the land devolved upon his two sons Mansukh and Bhikha which has been evidenced by extract of 1347 Fasli on record. Thereafter during consolidation proceedings the name of Bhikha was dropped and in C.H. From 41 the names of Mansukh along remained recorded. Mansukh transferred his rights to defendants No. 1 and 2 against whom the plaintiff has sought declaration of co-Bhumidhari rights. Thus, it is apparent from the record that the name of Bhikha was expunged sometimes during consolidation proceedings and thereafter the name of Mansukh alone was recorded in the village papers. On the basis of this the learned Additional Commissioner held that the suit was barred by Section 49. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was admittedly an ancestral land and merely because it was entered only in the name of one brother would not debar the legal representatives of the other brother from claiming co-tenancy rights with one who was recorded. He has, in this connection, drawn my attention towards pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court reported in Raj Bahadur Singh v. Board of Revenue 1979 R.D. 50. He has, in this connection, drawn my attention towards pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court reported in Raj Bahadur Singh v. Board of Revenue 1979 R.D. 50. He has also drawn my attention towards pronouncement of the Board in Kariya v. Samad 1978 R.D. 89. 6. The pronouncement of the Board as reported in 1978 R.D. 89 is to the effect that the entries in record of rights prepared by consolidation authorities are no more conclusive but are rebuttable. This was rightly so held, in my opinion, on the basis of the amended Section 27 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was amended in the year 1965 and sub-section (2) of which reads, "All entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved". From this, it appears that presumption is that entries are true but they are not conclusive, and by cogent evidence this presumption may be rebutted. 7. As regards the ruling referred to, as reported in 1979 R.D. 50, to my mind, it is not applicable to this particular case. In that case the co-sharers were in actual possession of their respective shares and being in actual possession for a long period of time, it was held that the bar of Section 49, C.H. Act could not apply. In the present case, there is no evidence to the effect, that both Mansukh and Bhikha were in actual possession of their respective shares. There is simply an entry of their names in 1347 Fasli. But what happened thereafter during consolidation proceedings as to why Bhikha was not recorded along with Mansukha, there is nothing to suggest it. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondents that there might be some possibility that in respect of this land which was recorded in favour of Mansukha, Bhikha might have been given some other land, and this possibility, to my mind, cannot be ruled out. It is evident from the evidence of plaintiff, who was examined as P.W. 3, that he or his father did not raise any objection before the consolidation authorities when the name of his father was expunged from the records. To my mind, this objection ought to have been taken by the plaintiff or his father during consolidation proceedings claiming that he was a co-tenure holder with Mansukh. To my mind, this objection ought to have been taken by the plaintiff or his father during consolidation proceedings claiming that he was a co-tenure holder with Mansukh. But since this objection was not taken by Bhikha, the rights of the parties were then declared adjudicate and the consolidation authorities during consolidation proceedings recorded the name of Mansukh alone and, therefore, the plaintiff is precluded from challenging it in any civil or revenue Courts. Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is very clear on this point. It reads: "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 lying in an area, for which a 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 a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under 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." It is thus evident that plaintiff or his father could or ought to have taken proceedings for the correction of his name or for continuance of his name in record of rights along with Mansukh during the consolidation proceedings. But since no such steps were taken by him, and no such objections were raised by him, he cannot now move civil or revenue courts for the said purpose and cannot seek declaration that he is co-Bhumidhar along with Mansukh. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention towards the pronouncement of Board in Abbas Khan v. Kallu Khan 1976 R.D. 191. in which in similar circumstances it was held by the Board that the bar of Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act operates. 9. I, after carefully considering the arguments of the parties, come to the conclusion that the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that the plaintiff's suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and rightly dismissed it. I, therefore, find no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs.