JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the order dated 2-8-84 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi, in appeal no. 23/16 of 1983-84. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case that Imam Khan filed a suit under Sections 229-B/209 of Act I of 1951 before the Sub-Divisional Officer Math, alleging that he was the bhumidhar of the land in suit, and that the name of the defendant was wrongly recorded in the revenue records. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court. An appeal was preferred before the Learned Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal holding that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the case of co-tenancy the bar of Section 49 C.H. Act is not applicable as held in 1979 R.D. 50 and 1980 R.D. page 81. From the former decision cited, it is apparently clear that rights of co-sharers in actual cultivatory possession are not extinguished. In the instant case the plaintiff claimed that he was the sole bhumidhar of the land in dispute and has not been claiming co-tenancy. He filed the suit for expunction of names of the defendants and for declaration of his rights as sole bhumidhar. The provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read as under :- "49. He filed the suit for expunction of names of the defendants and for declaration of his rights as sole bhumidhar. The provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read as under :- "49. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued, under sub-section (2) of Section 4 or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or out to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance, with the provisions of this Act and no civil or revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in much land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." From the reading of the above section it is clear that no civil or revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceedings with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 5. In the instant case, the plaintiff should have raised his claim of bhumidhari rights before the consolidation courts and by not doing so, the bar of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will come in his way, since he was claiming not co-tenancy but sole tenancy rights in the land in suit. Hence, the ruling reported in 1979 R.D. 50 could not apply to the instant case. 6. The decision of this Court, reported in 1980 R.D. 81 is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here, the suit was not for the division of holding but was for declaration of rights of the plaintiff. 7. In view of the above, I find that no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Commissioner in holding that the plaintiff's suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Consequently, this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.