JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- This is a defendants' writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the second appellate court dated 18-6-1975. 2. Opposite party no. 3 Mst. Darshan Devi filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms Act and claimed half share in the disputed land. The petitioners contested the claim of the plaintiff opposite party on the allegations that they were transferees of Mst. Kela Devi, opposite party no. 4 in the present writ petition and they had acquired exclusive right in the disputed land, and that the plaintiff' suit was not maintainable unless bhumidhari sanad in favour of Mst. Kela Devi was cancelled and that they were bona fide purchasers and that the claim of the plaintiff opposite party was barred by the provisions of Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act and various other pleas were taken. 3. The trial court through its judgment dated 14-10-69 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Thereafter in appeal the plaintiff's claim was accepted and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. In second appeal the judgment of the appellate court has been confirmed. Now the defendants-petitioners have approached this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the provisions of Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. According to him the transferor of the petitioners was only recorded over the disputed land and the petitioners had purchased the same. Therefore, the petitioners were bona fide purchasers and entitled to the disputed land, but their claim has been wrongly negatived and the plaintiff's claim is barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 5. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that Bhumidhari sanad in favour of their transferor was not cancelled hence the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable. 6. Third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that on the basis of estoppel and acquiescence the petitioners acquired title to the disputed land and their claim has been wrongly negatived by the appellate courts. 7. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that on the basis of estoppel and acquiescence the petitioners acquired title to the disputed land and their claim has been wrongly negatived by the appellate courts. 7. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. According to him there does not arise any question of bar of Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act and that the bhumidhari sanad in favour of the petitioners' transferror qua the share of the plaintiff-opposite party was void, hence there was no necessity to get the sanad cancelled and that the suit was maintainable. It has been emphasised that the petitioners have no claim on the principle of estoppel and acquisence especially when their theory of plaintiff's presence at the time of sale deed was false and incorrect. 8. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 9. As regards bar of Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act it is necessary to note that Kallu and Bal Mukand were sirdars of the Khata in which the disputed land is situate. The plaintiff-opposite party Mst. Darshan Devi and the petitioners transferor Mst. Kela Devi were heirs of Kallu. During the consolidation operations the khata of Bal Mukand was separated and over the share of Kallu the names of the plaintiff-opposite party Mst. Darshan Devi and the petitioners' transferor Mst. Kela Devi were ordered to be recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer through his order dated 22-3-1962, but in consolidation records the names of Bal Mukand along with Mst. Darshan Devi and Mst. Kela Devi continued. Therefore, the two daughters or Kallu applied for expunction of the name of Bal Mukand and the name of Bal Mukand was ordered to be expunged through the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 15-2-1963. Therefore, C.H. Form 25 was amended. The amended copy of C.H. Form 25 was filed in the case but it was not accepted as genuine document by the Trial court and the claim of the plaintiff opposite party was negatived. Even if the amended C.H. Form 25 is not accepted, it is not clear how the bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act would arise to negative the claim of the plaintiff opposite party. Even if the amended C.H. Form 25 is not accepted, it is not clear how the bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act would arise to negative the claim of the plaintiff opposite party. In the unamended C.H. Form 25 the name of the plaintiff was shown as one of the chak holders. Therefore, the bar of Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act would not at all arise and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is wholly devoid of merits. No decision has been filed in the present writ petition to demonstrate that Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act would be operative against the claim of the plaintiff opposite party. On the basis of the documentary evidence during the consolidation operations the plaintiff-opposite party is a cosharer and her suit cannot be thrown out on the ground of bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 10. As regards second contention the transferor of the petitioners was not exclusive sirdar of the disputed land, so she could not acquire bhumidhari sanad in respect of the whole area qua the share of the plaintiff-opposite party, the bhumidhari sanad would be a void document and in law it is not necessary to get such a sanad cancelled. Moreover before the appellate court the defendants-petitioners had not pressed that plea as is evident from the observation in the judgment of the appellate court I think that the defendants petitioners cannot be permitted to raise a plea which was already abandoned before the appellate court. 11. Regarding last contention it is note worthy that the petitioners had pleaded the bar of estoppel and acquiesence on the ground that the plaintiff opposite party was present at the time of the sale deed executed by Mst. Kela Devi in their favour, but on facts that contention has not been accepted by the Trial Court and the plea of estoppel and acquiescence was repelled by the Trial Court which gave judgment for the petitioners and the finding on the question of estoppel and acquiescence does not appear to have been challenged before the appellate court, therefore, in writ jurisdiction the petitioners cannot be permitted to urge a point which has not been pressed before the subordinate court. 12. 12. In the result all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners fail and the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.