JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6th January, 1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, dismissing the first appeal No. 148 of 1971 against the judgment and decree dated 27th August, 1974 passed by Assistant Collector, First Class, Ghazipur. In a suit under section 223-B/209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit on 28th September, 1969 for declaration to be Sirdar in possession of the disputed land alleging that defendants 1 and 2 are wrongly recorded who are not in possession, alternative relief of possession also have been sought if not found in possession. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit alleging that the disputed land is Bhumidhari of Sri Ram Laxman Janki that Budhu dies 1 year before his death. Budhu had surrendered the disputed land by giving Istifa and has given possession to Sri Ram Laxman Janki and the diety is in possession since then and defendants 1 and 2 are Sarvarakar of the diety and the plaintiffs had got no right title and possession over the disputed land. 4. I have heard that counsel for the parties and have perused the records. It has been request that no surrender deed has been filed and no surrender has been proved. The courts below have acted illegally in holding the surrender; that the plaintiffs were minors at the time of death of their father and grandfather whose names continued recorded, but the plaintiffs were in possession and when had attained majority, they applied for mutation which was wrongly rejected; that the entries of possession of the defendants are against the Land Records Manual. 5. It has been argued in reply that Budhu had died admitted by 20 years ago but had surrendered the disputed land and entry of possession of Budhu after his death were wrong and the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the diety is in possession the suit was rightly dismissed by both the courts. The concurrent finding of both the courts below are not liable to be interfered with that the plaintiffs had had not filed the suit for recovery of possession within 3 years under section 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and within three years after coming into force of Urban Z.A. and L.R. Act. The concurrent finding of both the courts below are not liable to be interfered with that the plaintiffs had had not filed the suit for recovery of possession within 3 years under section 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and within three years after coming into force of Urban Z.A. and L.R. Act. Therefore, the suit was rightly held not to be within time. 6. It is admitted case of the parties that Budhu Khatik was sub-tenant of the disputed plots of Sri Ram Laxman Janki died prior to his death although the PWs. 1 and 3 had contradicted each other about the contract of that sub tenancy. It is also admitted by P.Ws. that Budhu died 20 years ago and the plaintiffs are his grandons. The case of the defendants of P.W. 1 and D.W. 2 who have not contradicted each other in any respect and have also proved the possession of the deity through the Sarvarakars. This fact is corroborated by wrong entries in the name of Budhu although he had died some where in 1949 i.e. before 1359-F but he continued to be recorded as sub-tenant in the Khatauni of 1369-F with a period of 7 years in Pt. II and also in the Khatauni of 1369-F with a period of 16-17 years although he was dead. The plaintiffs were never recorded nor their fathers were recorded. The plaintiffs father if they had predeceased Budhu the plaintiffs were not minor after the death of Budhu but they were not recorded and where not in possession as has been held by both the courts below but they were recorded as sub-tenants in the Khasar of 136 although instead of Banarsi, Barasati was recorded with other two plaintiffs but Barasati is no person. Their parentage where not recorded. This entry of 1369-F is again sub-tenancy entry in the name of Budhu. This clearly shows that this entry was not genuine and rightly disbelieved by both the courts below. The plaintiffs took no steps for regaining possession either during the U.P.T. Act or under the Urban Z.A. and L.R. Act within 3 years which was limitation for both and they have not been found in possession rightly by the courts below after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record. The P.Ws. The plaintiffs took no steps for regaining possession either during the U.P.T. Act or under the Urban Z.A. and L.R. Act within 3 years which was limitation for both and they have not been found in possession rightly by the courts below after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record. The P.Ws. rightly disbelieved who contradicted have otherwise in not in defendant were as held by the trial court and D.Ws. rightly believed. Therefore, the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed and first appeal was also rightly dismissed by the courts below and the concurrent findings are not liable to be interfered with; hence this appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed with costs. The finding of both the courts below that the diety is in possession through Sarvarakar is liable to be confirmed. 7. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby dismissed with the courts and judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are hereby confirmed. The diety is declared to be Bhumidhar in possession through the Sarvarakars of the disputed land. The name of the plaintiff's shall be expugned and the papers shall be corrected accordingly by recording the diety through the Sarvarakars as Bhumidhars in possession of the disputed land.