ORDER K.N. Misra, J. - The dispute in the present case relates to plots of Khata Nos. 1, 2, 3, 43 and 45 situate in village Narauli Bhikham, Pargana Salempur Majhauli, Tehsil Salempur District Deoria. An objection was filed by the petitioners under S. 9(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) in respect of land of Khata Nos. 1 and 45 which were recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of Indrasan, Jagdeo and Kalicharan. The petitioners claimed that they are daughter's son of Jitan son of Jagesar. It was asserted by the petitioners that Jagesar had three brothers, namely, Dashrath, Jagesar and Lallu sons of Sheo Narain. A pedigree has been mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition and according to it the common ancestor was Balai who had two sons Sheo Narain and Ram Lagan. Indrasan, respondent No. 4 is grand son of Ram Lagan while respondent No. 7 Kali Charan is son of Lallu and the grandson of Sheo Narain. The other respondents, namely, Sri Kant and Radha Krishna are sons of Faujdar and grand sons of Dashrath son of Sheo Narain. The petitioners claimed that Jagesar was co-tenure holder in the aforesaid land in dispute having ?th share and it devolved on them being daughter's sons of Jitan son of Jagesar and are entitled to get 1 /6th share in the said land in dispute. Another objection was filed by Smt. Sakli mother of the petitioners in respect of land of Khata Nos. 1, 2, 3, 43 and 45 stating that she is daughter of Jitan son of Jagesar, and, as such, entitled to get a share in said holdings in dispute which are ancestral holdings. These objections were opposed by the opposite parties asserting that Jagesar died issueless and Jitan was not the son of Jagesar nor Smt. Sakli was the daughter of Jitan and the petitioners Ram Naresh and others are not the daughter's sons of Jitan. They also asserted that they are in possession over the land in dispute and whatever right, title and interest the objectors had in the holding in dispute, the same was lost by adverse possession. 2. They also asserted that they are in possession over the land in dispute and whatever right, title and interest the objectors had in the holding in dispute, the same was lost by adverse possession. 2. After taking evidence of the parties, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17-1-1973 allowed the objection of the petitioners only in respect of plot No. 202 of Khata No. 1 and also in respect of Khata No. 45 except plot No. 516. He gave ?th share in the said land holding to the petitioners holding that they are daughter's son of Jitan son of Jagesar and that Jagesar was co-tenure holder in the aforesaid land holdings. So far as the other holdings were concerned, the objection filed by Smt. Sakli was dismissed on the ground that Jagesar had no share in the said holdings and Smt. Sakli did not inherit the holding in the presence of her sons being daughter's sons under the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioners and also by Indrasan and others. These appeals were heard and decided by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 9-7-1973. The appeal filed by opposite parties Indrasan and others was dismissed by holding that the petitioners are daughter's sons of Jitan son of Jagesar and, therefore, they are entitled to inherit the share belonging to Jagesar in the aforesaid two holdings in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioners in respect of other holdings was also dismissed. Aggrieved by this order the opposite parties preferred revision. The petitioners had also filed a revision. These revisions were disposed of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 10-4-1974. The revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed while the revision filed by the opposite parties was allowed and it was held that the petitioners have not been able to prove that they are daughter's sons of Jitan or that Jitan was the son of Jagesar. It was further held that it Smt. Sakli was in fact the heir and successor of Jagesar, who died some 24 years ago, she should have got her name mutated as heir and successor. Thus, adverse inference was drawn by the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the petitioners for holding that they are not the daughter's sons of Jitan. It was further held that it Smt. Sakli was in fact the heir and successor of Jagesar, who died some 24 years ago, she should have got her name mutated as heir and successor. Thus, adverse inference was drawn by the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the petitioners for holding that they are not the daughter's sons of Jitan. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation further held that the opposite parties are in possession over the land in dispute and from this he has inferred that they are heir and successors of Jagesar. The claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that they failed to get their names mutated in the revenue records prior to the start of consolidation operations. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla urged that the concurrent finding of facts has been recorded by the two subordinate consolidation authorities to the effect that Smt. Sakli was daughter of Jitan son of Jagesar and that the petitioners are daughter's sons of Jitan. Learned counsel pointed out that the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have recorded a concurrent finding on the said point after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence led by the petitioners and the opposite parties. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into consideration at all the oral and documentary evidence led by the petitioners who have conclusively proved that Jitan was son of Jagesar and the petitioners are the daughter's sons of Jitan. Learned counsel further pointed out that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in drawing adverse inference against the petitioners from the facts that the petitioners' name was not mutated as heirs and successors of Jagesar and in the revenue records the names of opposite parties were mutated in place of Jagesar, who died some 24 years ago. Learned counsel further urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has further erred in drawing inference in favour of the opposite parties regarding their being heirs and successors of Jagesar merely on the ground that they were held to be in possession over the land in dispute. Learned counsel further urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has further erred in drawing inference in favour of the opposite parties regarding their being heirs and successors of Jagesar merely on the ground that they were held to be in possession over the land in dispute. Learned counsel urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has thus acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in deciding the case against the petitioners and in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. 4. In reply learned counsel for the opposite parties urged that the petitioners have not been able to establish that they are the daughter's sons of Jitan and, as such, they had not inherited the land in dispute belonging to Jagesar. Learned counsel pointed out that Jagesar had died issueless and Jitan was not the son of Jagesar. He further contended that the opposite parties have perfected rights by adverse possession over the land in dispute and their names were rightly mutated after death of Jagesar being heirs and successors. 5. I have considered the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the parties very carefully and I have perused the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In my opinion, there is much substance in the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. It is well settled that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising jurisdiction under S. 48 of the Act is entitled to consider the evidence and to record a finding both on questions of fact and law. If the judgment is of affirmance the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation need not refer to the entire evidence again in his order while maintaining the orders passed by the subordinate consolidation authorities by agreeing with the finding recorded by them. But if the judgment is not of affirmance and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is in difference to the findings recorded by the subordinate consolidation authorities, then the Deputy Director of Consolidation should take into consideration the entire oral and documentary evidence led by the parties on the material issues involved in the case. 7. In the present case I find that the two courts below have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that Jitan was son of Jagesar and the petitioners are daughter's sons of Jitan. 7. In the present case I find that the two courts below have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that Jitan was son of Jagesar and the petitioners are daughter's sons of Jitan. Their mother Smt. Sakli is daughter of Jitan. The two subordinate consolidation authorities have recorded this finding after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation his not at all considered the oral evidence led by the petitioners. The petitioners had examined Samtalli, Sint. Sakli, Ram Naresh, Ram Nagina and Jitan in support of their case that they are the daughter's sons of Jitan son of Jagesar. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has, thus, acted illegally and with material irregularity in not deciding the case properly after taking into consideration the evidence led by the petitioners. Jitan was initially shown to be son of Jagesar in the objection. Subsequently this admission in the objection was sought to be amended by an amendment application. Although the amendment was allowed but the fact remains that initially the opposite parties had admitted Jitan to be son of Jagesar. Apart from it, the petitioners had also led oral evidence in support of their case that Jitan was the son of Jagesar and Sakli was the daughter of Jitan and that the petitioners are daughter's sons of Jitan. The subordinate consolidation authorities have placed reliance upon the birth register entry dated 27th August, 1916 for holding that a daughter was born to Jitan and looking to the age of Smt. Sakli the two subordinate consolidation authorities considered the said entry to be connected with Smt. Sakli and held Smt. Sakli to be daughter of Jitan. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that the aforesaid birth register entry goes to show that there was a person of the name of Jitan to whom a daughter was born and that Jitan was born prior to 1906, but the onus lay on the petitioners to prove that Jitan was son of Jagesar. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that after death of Jagesar, Smt. Sakli had deposed that Jagesar had died some 24 years ago and Jitan had died some 25-30 years ago. He thus, observed that if the petitioners were heirs and successors of Jagesar, why an attempt was not made to get their names mutated. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that after death of Jagesar, Smt. Sakli had deposed that Jagesar had died some 24 years ago and Jitan had died some 25-30 years ago. He thus, observed that if the petitioners were heirs and successors of Jagesar, why an attempt was not made to get their names mutated. He had further observed that since the mutation was effected in the names of the opposite parties, and as such, it cannot be assumed that the petitioners are the heirs and successors of Jagesar. I find that the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken an altogether erroneous view on that point. It is well settled that neither mutation order nor the revenue record entries based of the mutation order would debar a person from claiming title in the land in dispute on the basis of his alleged claim of inheritance being heir and successor of the tenure holder. In that view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by drawing unwarranted inference against the petitioners and unwarranted inference in favour of the opposite parties on the basis of mutation of their names cannot be sustained. 8. So far as the question of possession is concerned, I find that in the matter regarding claim of co-tenancy rights, the question of actual physical possession over the land in dispute is not very material. It is well settled that possession of co-sharer is possession of all provided ouster of the co-sharer is alleged and proved. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that the names of the opposite parties were mutated and they are in possession. That may be so, but being in possession over the land in dispute will not extinguish the right, title and interest claimed by the petitioners as co-sharers in the property in dispute unless it is found that by some overt act the claimant-petitioners were dispossessed and their title as co-sharers was renounced by the opposite parties in their knowledge. In the present case I find that the opposite parties challenged that the petitioners are co-sharers. In the present case I find that the opposite parties challenged that the petitioners are co-sharers. Thus, there is no question of claiming title by adverse possession against the petitioners because the petitioners have at no point of time been accepted to be co-sharers by the opposite parties and since they have not been accepted to be co-sharers by the opposite parties, and, as such, the alleged exclusive possession of the opposite parties cannot be treated to be of the nature of hostile adverse possession against the petitioners, who will get a share in the land in dispute if they will be held to be heirs and successors of Jagesar being daughter's sons of Jitan. The two courts below have held that the petitioners are the daughter's sons of Jitan. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, as already observed, has not taken into consideration the entire evidence on record while recording a different finding. In that view of the matter the impugned order dated 10-4-1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. The case deserves to be remanded back to him for decision afresh on merits after taking into consideration the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 10-4-1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, is hereby quashed and he is directed to restore the revision and decide it afresh on merits according to law and in the light of observations made above.