JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow on 18.4.1987, dismissing the appeal No. 323 of 1983-84 and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Asstt. Collector 1st Class Sidhauli dated 8.1.1984. 2. The facts of the case are that Deoki Nandan and Smt. Sarojini filed a suit u/Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the declaration of their co-tenancy rights along with the defendants Thakur Prasad and Chhotey Lal over plot numbers 225, 336, 206 and 226 situate in village Albada, pergana Manwa tehsil Sidhauli district Sitapur. Basing their claims on the pedigree noted below: They have contended that the land in dispute was created by their common ancestors Ramdin and Munnu. The plaintiffs lived in village Birsapur and acquired the same property there for which the defendants have no concern. The land in dispute is recorded in the name of the defendants in representative capacity as both the plaintiffs and the defendants are members of the joint Hindu family. The land in dispute is in joint possession of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. The cause of action arose when the defendant made an attempt to restrain the plaintiffs from retaining possession. The defendant also refused for partition of the land. 3. The defendants appellant contested the case denying the allegation. Their case is that they are sole acquirer of the land in dispute. The father of the plaintiff had left the village and settled down in the village Birsapur. The suit is barred u/Sec. 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The learned trial court framed 9 issues and after hearing the parties decreed the suit on 14.1.1984 holding the plaintiffs co-tenants with the defendant appellants. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Addl. Commissioner agreed with the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal on 18.4.1987. Hence this second appeal before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri H.O.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants has made the following submissions: His first submission is that the defendant appellants were recorded against the plots in dispute during the consolidation operations and no objection was raised by the plaintiff-respondents. Reliance has been placed on 1991 Supreme Court 249. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri H.O.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants has made the following submissions: His first submission is that the defendant appellants were recorded against the plots in dispute during the consolidation operations and no objection was raised by the plaintiff-respondents. Reliance has been placed on 1991 Supreme Court 249. His second submission is that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the legal position. The case is covered by the Oudh Rent Act provides that the statutory tenancy under the Oudh Rent Act is not here, (sic) table and so the plaintiff respondents cannot be co-tenants along with the defendant appellants even if the pedigree is accepted and proved. In support, he has relied on 1983 AWC 531. His third submission is that the judgment passed by both the courts below are no judgments in the eye of law as the evidence on record was not properly appraised. The learned Additional Commissioner has not considered oral evidence and the concurrent findings of fact based on wrong principles of law are vitiated. Relying on Vishwanath and another v. Ram Raj and others, 1991 R.D. 104, the learned counsel has contended that the appraisal of evidence suffers from material irregularity. Findings based on inadmissible evidence or misreading of evidence can be interfered with by the appellate court and the decree passed on such finding cannot be sustained. He has also relied on 1988 ALJ 1 and 1991 AWC 646 . 5. Sarvasri B.B. Paul and K.D. Tripathi appeared for the respondents. Their contention is that there is no proof of acquisition and the burden of proving acquisition is on the appellants. It was further submitted that the lower courts' findings demolish the appellant's case and the fraud was played during the course of the consolidation operation. As regards the bar u/Sec. 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, their submission is that a suit for co-tenancy is not barred u/Sec. 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Reliance has been placed on 1981 RD 103, 1979 RD 50 and 1980 RD 30. Sri K.D. Tripathi has strongly pressed his contention that the Oudh Rent Act is not applicable to this case. 6. I have given a careful thought to the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. Reliance has been placed on 1981 RD 103, 1979 RD 50 and 1980 RD 30. Sri K.D. Tripathi has strongly pressed his contention that the Oudh Rent Act is not applicable to this case. 6. I have given a careful thought to the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. The first question for consideration is whether the suit is barred u/Sec. 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 provides that -- "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 ought 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 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 this Act." 7. It is quite clear from the above provision that the consolidation proceedings are final in respect of rights and title of the parties and no court is competent to reopen the question. Admittedly the defendant appellants were recorded during the consolidation operations. That was the stage when the plaintiff respondents could file objection to get their rights adjudicated upon by the consolidation authorities. After the consolidation was over and the plaintiff respondents lost their right to file a suit before a revenue court for the declaration of their rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held in Sita Ram v. Chhota Bhondey and others, 1990 R.D. 439 (S.C.) that no civil or revenue court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit even if the land is recorded in representative capacity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held in Sita Ram v. Chhota Bhondey and others, 1990 R.D. 439 (S.C.) that no civil or revenue court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit even if the land is recorded in representative capacity. The facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were that respondent No. 1 was claiming an interest in the land lying in the area covered by the notification issued under Section 4 (2) on the basis that he was the son of Chhota, brother of Nanha and that the land was recorded in the name of Nanha in a representative capacity on behalf of himself and his other brothers. This claim which fell within the ambit of Section 5 (2) had to be adjudicated by the Consolidation Authorities. Since it was a matter falling within the scope of adjudicatory functions assigned to the consolidation authorities under the Act the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit in respect of the said matter was expressly barred by Section 49 of the Act and the suit of the appellant was rightly dismissed on that ground. 8. The facts of the instant case are similar, rather identical to the facts of the case under reference. The plaintiff respondents have come forward with the case that the defendant appellants being Karta of the Joint Hindu Family were recorded against the plots in dispute in representative capacity and since the land in dispute was acquired by their common ancestors, they are co-tenants along with the defendant appellants. In view of the above latest ruling given by the highest court of the land, the suit filed by the plaintiff respondents was not maintainable and the learned courts below have committed manifest error in law in holding that the suit was not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. In view of this legal position any discussion on the merits of the case is not warranted. 9. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is consequently allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs.