ORDER I.B. Singh, Member - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated January 17, 1979 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, allowing appeal No. 4 of 1977-79/Etah decreeing plaintiff's suit by setting aside judgment and decree dated August 19, 1977 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class, Etah, dismissing plaintiff's suit. 2. The plaintiff's had filed the suit on January 19, 1972 i.e. in 1880 Fasli for declaration to be Bhumidhar in possession of plot Nos. 53-A, .23 and 58 .85 on the basis of sale deed dated March 24, 1971 executed by Farooq Husain, the recorded tenant; that defendant No. 1 Mohammad Ali got his name fictitiously and wrongly recorded in Verg 9, hence if he is found in possession alternative relief for possession be also granted. 3. Mahmood Ali contested the suit, on, the ground that defendant No. 2 Faruq Husain had never been in possession that he is in possession since more than 30 years; that the suit is barred by time and that the land in suit is not identifiable on the spot; that he has become Sirdar by adverse possession of the dispute plot. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It has been argued that plot No. 53-A .23 does not exist in the record. It is not identifiable on the spot and that plot No. 53 Sy. .23 is recorded in the name of Faruq Husain who had never been in possession; that plot No. 53 is in the possession of the defendant since 30 years and Faruq Husain had admitted his possession in the mutation case of the plaintiff; that the suit is time barred; that the lower appellate court did not consider these as perts of the case and held plot No. 53 to be identifiable but did not say a word about plot Nos. 53-A or 53 and gave no finding regarding relief for possession in favour of the plaintiff. Reliance has been placed on Savitri Devi v. Acchelal, 1968 R.D. 276, Mohan Lal v. Sathoo Ram and others, 1976 R.D. (F.B.) Part II. p. 202. 6. 53-A or 53 and gave no finding regarding relief for possession in favour of the plaintiff. Reliance has been placed on Savitri Devi v. Acchelal, 1968 R.D. 276, Mohan Lal v. Sathoo Ram and others, 1976 R.D. (F.B.) Part II. p. 202. 6. It was argued in reply that plot No. 53-A recorded in village papers as 53- .23 is identifiable on the spot being west to plot No. 52 as stated by PWS that possession prior to consolidation operation and during it is washed out and cannot be taken advantage of by the contesting defendants. Reliance has been placed on Dharam Prakash and another v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation U.P. and others, 1968 R.D. 262 and Het Ram v. Kunwar Sen, 1973 R.D. 224. 7. In Savitrj Devi v. Acchelal, 1968 R.D. (F.B.) 276, it has been held that. (1) A decree for ejectment can be refused on the ground that the land in dispute is not identifiable on the spot. (2) (a) An objection regarding identifiability of the land on the spot should be raised and determined during the trial of the suit, preferably the court may eves before the defence call upon the plaintiff for proper details and certainly on objection by any of the defendants the point should be determined as a preliminary I point. (2) (b) The question should not be knowingly left over for decision in execution proceeding. (3) Such a point can be raised in esse of ejectment and if raised, it would be necessary to frame an issue on the point I and decide it as a preliminary issue. 8. In Mohan Lal v. Nathoo Ram and others, 1968 R.D. (F.B.) 262, it has been held that: - "Once it is held that the land in dispute is not identifiable, the present suit for ejectment under Section 209 could not be decreed". 9. In Dharam Prakash and another v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, U.P. and others (supra), it has been held that: - "As held in Shakuntla Devi. v. Dy. Dir. 9. In Dharam Prakash and another v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, U.P. and others (supra), it has been held that: - "As held in Shakuntla Devi. v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation decided by High I Court of Allahabad on the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act the continued possession would not enure for maturing any title because on that date Sections 209 and 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would be deemed to have stood repealed, so that no suit mentioned in Section 210 could accrue". 10. In Het Ram v. Kunwar Sen (supra), it has been held that: - "It is a patent fact that all possession whether legal, illegal or adverse is washed of as a result of consolidation proceedings in which transfer of possession occurs. No one can claim subsequent to consolidation proceedings any perfection of title as a result of adverse possession which may date to the period before consolidation operation. If any such claim was the sustainable it was only during consolidation proceedings. Since the land in dispute was given to the plaintiffs as part of their Chak the defendants are not entitled to it nor can they lay any claim on the basis of adverse possession unless the adverse possession started after transfer of possession and the conclusion of consolidation I proceedings and a period of six years elapsed from such date". 11. The possession of the defendants over the disputed plot can be very safely concluded to be of more than 20 years prior to the institution of the suit and of more than 2 years prior to the coming into force of Act I of 1951 as Faruq Husain defendant-respondent the vendor himself admitted to have been in service more than 20 years prior to the institution of the suit and that he never lived in the village and never did any cultivation and he could not tell the name of Pradhan or Lekhpal of the village in question and not even if any other villagers or of the person to whom he had engaged for cultivation of plots and that too a blind person. He had admitted possession over plot No. 62 of the defendant in the mutation case of the plaintiff by his objection dated April 26, 1972. The possession of the defendant is proved by his D.Ws. He had admitted possession over plot No. 62 of the defendant in the mutation case of the plaintiff by his objection dated April 26, 1972. The possession of the defendant is proved by his D.Ws. and the circumstance and the admission of defendant No. 2 to be of more than 20 years over the disputed plots. 12. Plot No. 53 was a grove which was out of Chakbandi and the defendant-appellant was not a co-tenant over the disputed area .23 with Faruq Husain. In plot No. 53 area .92 Faruq Husain is recorded Bhumidhar of .23 as 52 Ka and defendant Mah-mood Ali is recorded Bhumidhar of .46 as 53 Sa. as Sirdar of .23 as 53 Sa. No plot No. 53-A .23 exist and the suit ought to have been thrown on this ground alone as this area of .23 in suit is not identifiable on the spot and the contesting defendant had been in possession since prior to 1950 and had become by adverse possession its hereditary tenant or now a Sirdar. As regards plot No. 52 it had been in possession of the defendant since more than 2 years prior to the abolition of Zamindari according to the own admission of defendant Faruq Husain. The mere fact that entry over it of Verg 9 was made in 1378 Fasli by the order of the S.D.O. dated July 16, 1971 does not make the possession of contesting defendant from 1378 Fasli but lends support to his case. The rulings relied upon on behalf of the appellant are fully applicable to the present case. The plaintiffs were not mutated because they were not found in possession. They gave boundary of whole plot No. 53 and not of area in dispute. The civil suit between Faruq Husain and plaintiff having ended into compromise is of no consequence in the present circumstances of the case and the fact that civil suit between plaintiff and contesting defendants having been lost by the plaintiff in the Munsif's court against which appeal is pending also does not help the plaintiff. 13. The civil suit between Faruq Husain and plaintiff having ended into compromise is of no consequence in the present circumstances of the case and the fact that civil suit between plaintiff and contesting defendants having been lost by the plaintiff in the Munsif's court against which appeal is pending also does not help the plaintiff. 13. The rulings relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents are not applicable to the present case, because the defendant had been in possession prior to the abolition of zamindari for more than 2 years and had been in possession after coming into force of Act I of 1961 and had been in possession during the consolidation operation and even after delivery of possession of Chaks and area afterwards, therefore, had matured his right of hereditary tenant and of Sirdari rights over the disputed land, hence the findings arrived at by the trial court were highly justified and the findings arrived at by the lower appellate court without considering all the said aspects of the case amounts to perversity and is liable to be set aside and that of trial court is liable to be confirmed. 14. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court is confirmed and the plaintiff's suit stands dismissed with costs although and defendant Mahmood Ali is declared to be Sirdar in posses-son of the disputed plot who shall be so recorded in the village papers which shall be corrected accordingly and the name of the defendant shall be expunged.