JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This second appeal is directed against the decree dated 17.1.72 passed by Sri G.S. Seth, Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division Lucknow, confirming the decree dated 16.3.71 passed by Sri R.S. Pathak, S.D.O. Purwa, Unnao in a case u/s 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Parmeshwar Din and others filed a suit u/s 176 of the Act against Niranjan seeking partition of plot Nos. 117/1/5-0, 46-Ka/3-5-0, 47/9-12-0, 52/3-8-0, 179/0-1-0, 184/0-10-0, 189/0-4-0, 206/0-2-0, 209/0-5-0, 210/0-5-0, 213/0-1-0, 215/0-3-0, 216/0-1-0,217/0-1-0, 220/0-1-0, 222/0-1-0, 224/0-2-0, 225/0-1-0, 229/0-6-0, 230/0-2-0, 238/0-2-0, and 266/0-4-0 total area 13-7-0 situate in village Deora Mau pergana and Tehsil Safipur, district Unnao. Their case is that formerly Smt. Mahdei daughter of Ishwari and defendant Niranjan were co-tenants of the land in suit with share each. Smt. Mahdei sold her share to the plaintiffs. On the basis of this transfer, the plaintiff's name were mutated. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 over cultivation of the land in dispute necessitated filing of the partition suit. The defendant Niranjan contested the suit on the ground that he was the sole Bhumidhar in possession of the land in suit and that Smt. Mahdei was never in possession; that actually Tika s/o Bandi was the co-tenant along with the defendant. Tika died heir-less. After his death, the defendant inherited the property by succession u/s 175 of the Act. It was also alleged that Smt. Mahdei was not the legal heir of Tika because she was not the sister of Tika. Actually she was the daughter of the former husband of the wife of Ishwari. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed 5 issues and decreed the suit on 16.3.71 holding that Smt. Mahdei is the daughter of Ishwari and the plaintiffs were co-bhumidhars along with the contesting defendant to the extent of share. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant went in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner who disposed of the appeal, dismissed it with costs on 17.1.72. The present second appeal has been filed against this very order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant went in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner who disposed of the appeal, dismissed it with costs on 17.1.72. The present second appeal has been filed against this very order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri H.O.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Smt. Mahdei cannot be the sister of Tika because Tika is recorded as the son of Bandi in the Khatauni 1374-76F and in CH-23 and 45 and the order dated 18.10.63 passed by the Consolidation Officer. His second submission is that no issue about the bar u/s 49 of the UPCH Act was framed. The suit is barred by Section 49 of the UPCH Act as all the entries as required u/s 27 of the UPCH Act are presumed to be true. Since these entries were made before 1965, they are not rebuttable as the Act XII came in force in 1965. Reliance has been placed on 1976 RD 172 and 1978 RD 165. His next submission is that Smt. Mahdei could not succeed because the deceased Tika had himself admitted that he was the son of Bandi and Smt. Mahdei was bound by the admission of Tika. In this connection, reference of Section 32 of the Evidence Act has been made and reliance has been placed on 1983 AWC 94. Referring to the observation made by the learned trial court regarding purchase of some land by the sons of the defendant from Smt. Mahdei, the learned counsel has contended that no adverse inference can be drawn against their father. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1955 S.C. 271 and AIR 1973 SC 997 . Assailing the judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner, the learned counsel has contended that reliance placed by the court below on the Kutumb Register showing Tika as the son of Ishwari is not based on record. 4. Sri N.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is proved from the documents as well as oral evidence that Tika alias Tikai was the son of Ishwari and not of Bandi His second submission is that both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact which cannot be assailed and interfered with in this second appeal. Reliance has been placed on 1969 RD 291 (SC) and 1980 RD 300 (SC). Reliance has been placed on 1969 RD 291 (SC) and 1980 RD 300 (SC). His third submission is that wrong entries made during consolidation proceedings are rebuttable and not conclusive. Reliance has been placed on 1970 RD 396 and 1978 RD 89. His another submission is that when a person is a co-tenure holder, his title cannot be challenged and partition cannot be refused u/s 176 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on 1976 RD 20 and 1981 RD 157. He has further contended that Tika died in 1967 and both Mahdei and Niranjan were jointly mutated in 1969. They jointly applied for bhumidhari sanad and after obtaining it they became co-bhumidhars. Continuing his arguments, he submitted that actually Bandi was the father of Tika and not Ishwari. The appellant made no objection about the parentage of Mahdei when the mutation proceedings were initiated and bhumidhari sanad was obtained. His last submission is that mere clerical error creeping in the consolidation operations, does not bar the suit u/s 49 of the UPCH Act. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that firstly the pedigree is not impleaded in the plaint, secondly, the mutation will not bar the regular suit, thirdly there was no admission in the written statement and lastly P.W. 2 did not make any admission during the course of his statement before the trial court. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. The only substantial question of law involved in this case is whether succession devolved on Smt. Mahdei after the death of Tika and whether the entries made during the consolidation operation can be subsequently challenged in a regular suit. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings on the parentage of Smt. Mahdei holding that she is the daughter of Tika. It is an established principle of law that the concurrent finding of fact, howsoever erroneous, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on this point is, therefore, not tenable. 6. The next question for consideration is whether the case is covered by the Act XII of 1965. There is strong evidence to prove that Tika is the son of Ishwari. In the Khatauni of 1356F, Murli, Shiv Lal and Tika are shown as the son of Ishwar. Same entry continued in 1359F. 6. The next question for consideration is whether the case is covered by the Act XII of 1965. There is strong evidence to prove that Tika is the son of Ishwari. In the Khatauni of 1356F, Murli, Shiv Lal and Tika are shown as the son of Ishwar. Same entry continued in 1359F. The learned trial court has observed that in the extract of family register Part I, Tika has once been shown as son of Ishwari and subsequently as son of Bandi. Long standing entries made in 1356 and 1359F are presumed to be correct. He appears to have been wrongly recorded as the son of Bandi during the consolidation proceedings. The amendment made in 1965 has taken away the finality and conclusiveness of the entries made in the consolidation records and it is now open to a party to challenge the entries. In the instant case, it has been adequately proved that the father of Tika was Ishwari and not Bandi. The suit is, therefore, not barred u/s 49 of the UPCH Act. The alleged admission of the deceased Tika that he was the son of Bandi does not cut the roots of the case of the respondent. 7. The facts and circumstances of the case also go in favour of the respondent. No objection was raised by the appellant when the mutation was sought and bhumidhari sanad was obtained. The parentage of Smt. Mahdei was not challenged when the appellant's own son purchased the land from her. The learned trial court has given a categorical finding that a daughter was born to Ishwari as early as on 21.3.1917. But no objection about her parentage was raised during the proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, satisfied that the courts below have committed no mistake in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. 8. In the result, this appeal fails and is consequently dismissed.