JUDGMENT : B.L. Yadav, J. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 26-5-78 and the order dated 16-5-66 passed by the Additional Commissioner passed in a suit u/s 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dismissing the Second Appeal of the Petitioner, who was Defendant in the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration of co-sirdari and co-bhumidhari rights along with the Petitioner, Defendant No. 1. The facts in brief are that the Plaintiff Respondents had claimed co-tenancy rights alleging that the land in dispute was joint ancestral property of undivided Hindu family and the Plaintiffs were minor at the time of death of their father and their uncle Asha Ram, Defendant No. 1 alone was recorded during their minority and Asha Ram, their uncle was managing the whole affair and he used to divide the produce of agriculture and it was never known to the Plaintiffs that only Asha Ram, Petitioner alone was recorded and their possession continued to be peaceful along with the possession of the Petitioner and even during the consolidation operation the name of Asha Ram, the Petitioner continued, but later on there arose a dispute and the Petitioner denied their claims. Hence there arose necessity to file the present suit. 2. The suit was contested by the Petitioner alleging that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and that he was the sole tenure holder and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were not the co-Defendants and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 3. The trial court by its order dated 16-5-66 (Aunexure-1), dismissed the suit, whereas Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by order dated 8-11-66 and the Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed on 26-5-78. It is these two orders against which the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Sri P.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the suit of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by order dated 8-11-66 and the Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed on 26-5-78. It is these two orders against which the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Sri P.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the suit of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as during the consolidation operation only the name of Asha Ram, the Petitioner was entered and his name cannot be deemed to be entered in representative capacity during consolidation operation and in case Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have any claim, they should have preferred objections during consolidation operation for declaration of their co-tenancy rights, but as they failed to do so hence their claim was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 5. Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 urged that the suit was not barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, inasmuch as even during consolidation operation the name of Asha Ram, the Petitioner was recorded in representative capacity and possession of one co-tenant was possession of all. Even though only the name of Asha Ram, the Petitioner continued, but it was for the benefit of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 also and as Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 also continued in possession during consolidation operation, but that would not lead to conclusion that they cannot agitate their claim subsequently after the issuance of notification u/s 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 6. In this writ petition the only point which requires consideration is as to whether the suit of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is a fact as held by all the authorities that the Plaintiffs, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were minors at the time of death of Kundan, father of the Petitioner and Raja Ram, father of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had predeceased Kundan. Hence even u/s 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act the Plaintiffs were entitled to inherit the land in dispute after the death of their father. But that was not done and only the name of Petitioner continued after the death of his father Kundan. But Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had predeceased Kundan. Hence even u/s 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act the Plaintiffs were entitled to inherit the land in dispute after the death of their father. But that was not done and only the name of Petitioner continued after the death of his father Kundan. But Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being the sons of Raja Ram, father of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 who was recorded along with Kundan, the possession of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 continued as co-tenants even after the death of their father Raja Ram, even though the name of Kundan or thereafter the name of his sons only continued to be recorded in the revenue papers, but that would not disentitle Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 to claim any right along with the Petitioners. The possession of one co-tenant is possession of all and it has not come in evidence nor there was any pleading that Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were also ousted nor any plea of ouster was taken, nor any plea of adverse possession had been taken by the Petitioner. Even during the consolidation operation if the name of only one co-tenant continued to be recorded that would not disentitle the other co-tenants to claim rights or to seek partition of the holdings even after the close of consolidation operation after the issuance of notification u/s 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 7. In Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh AIR 1964 SC 1657, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as follows: Section 49 which excludes jurisdiction of civil court must be considered strictly. It bars civil suit in respect of matters arising out of consolidation proceedings and matters in regard to which suit and application could be filed under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 8. In Karbalai Begum Vs. Mohd. Sayeed and Another, (1980) 4 SCC 396 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, held as under: It is well settled that unless there is express provision barring a suit on the basis of title, the court cannot infer bar of the suit. 9. Mohd. Sayeed and Another, (1980) 4 SCC 396 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, held as under: It is well settled that unless there is express provision barring a suit on the basis of title, the court cannot infer bar of the suit. 9. In 1978 Allahabad Rent Cases 496, the Supreme Court has held that where some statutory provision has been made: about disentitling a person from filing a suit, effort should be made to interpret in such a way so that a party may not be precluded from the rights of litigation and from availing the remedy available to him. In other words interpretation should be made in such a way so as not to shut out rights or remedy available to a party by filing a suit or claiming any other remedy before a court of law. 10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further placed reliance on Ram Pal Singh Vs. Khandey and Others, (1976) AWC 229, where the facts were that the Plaintiff has filed a suit for cancellation of his sale deed on the ground that he was co-sir holder with his father and after passing of the UP ZA and LR Act, he became co-bhumidhar along with his father hence his father could not transfer the entire land. Previous to filing of the suit the village was brought under consolidation operation and even in those proceedings, the Plaintiffs did not file any objection for declaration of his co-tenancy rights. On those facts it was held that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the Plaintiff should have filed objection for cancellation of the sale deed for declaration of his rights during the consolidation operation and in that connection reliance was placed on Jaganmth Shukla v. Sita Ram 1969 AWR 435. But the facts of the present case are entirely different. In this case there is no cancellation of sale deed involved nor that the father of the Petitioner was Sir holder nor the Plaintiffs have challenged the sale deed executed by their father. Every principle decided by a court is a good law for the purposes of the facts of that particular case. There can be no universal application of those principles. Every principle decided by a court is a good law for the purposes of the facts of that particular case. There can be no universal application of those principles. In the instant case, I think that the facts are entirely different where the father of Plaintiff-Respondents 1 and 2 predeceased their uncle Kundan when they were minors after the death of father the names of minor sons should have been recorded in view of Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, but that was not done and only the name of uncle continued. The name of uncle also continued during the consolidation operation. As the Plaintiff Respondents were co-tenants and in possession on the spot and they were getting share in the cultivation also, accordingly they did not bother to file objection during the consolidation operation for declaration of co-tenancy rights. It goes without saying that possession of one co-tenant is possession of all. In case the co-tenants are in possession, they need not file any suit for declaration of their co-tenancy rights. They would file suit only when their rights are violated or their interest is not protected or their share in the produce is refused by the remaining co-tenants, otherwise there is no necessity to file suit and in other words to invite litigation. In the instant case, I think that even though the suit was filed for declaration of co-tenancy rights after the issuance of notification u/s 52 of the Act, the claim of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they are co-tenants, was not barred by Section 49 of the Act. 11. The view that I am taking also finds support from Shesh Nath v. Smt. Parbati 1982 (8) ALR 129. 12. In view of the discussion made above, I am of the view that the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue correctly held that the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was not barred by Section 49 of the Act. It was also held by the Additional Commissioner that after the death of their father Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were minor and they were entitled to inherit the rights of their father u/s 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and they continued in possession even if their names were not entered and only the names of Kundan and other recorded tenure holders were recorded in revenue papers, but Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were minor and they were entitled to inherit the rights of their father u/s 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and they continued in possession even if their names were not entered and only the names of Kundan and other recorded tenure holders were recorded in revenue papers, but Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 continued in peaceful possession after the death of their father. Otherwise also I am of the view that substantial justice has been done by the impugned orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in holding Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to be co-tenant and in not rejecting their claim on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 13. In view of what has been stated herein before, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, Here stall be no order as to costs.