JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This second appeal has been filed under section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree judgment dated 6.8.1979 passed by Addl. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly at Moradabad in appeal No. 92 of 1978 before him. That appeal arises against the decree and judgment dated 4.5.1978 passed by Sri R.S. Mishra, Assistant Collector 1st Class, Rampur in suit No. 59 of 1977-78 under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The Appellant Izahr-ul-hasan Khan filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 that he is Co-bhumidhar of the suit plot with defendant Rais Khan. The defendants Smt. Shmim Jahan, Smt. Nazuk Jahan and Smt. Noor Jahan are wrongly recorded over the disputed plots. The main plea of the plea of the plaintiff was that the land was ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant Rais Khan. The land was given on Batai to defendant Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan. Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan was shown to be dead and his place defendants Smt. Shamin Jahan, Smt. Nazuk Jahan and Smt. Noor Jahan were mutated by fraudulent order because Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan defendant still alive. This was done because he manipulated to got his name fraudulently recorded over the disputed plot. On the basis of that fraudulent entry his name also was recorded in consolidation operation. Defendant Rais Khan was minor during consolidation operation. He was out and came quite late in fake and of the consolidation operation, hence his objection was rejected as time-barred. Since the entry is fraudulent, hence the consolidation operation will not operate as a bar under Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. 3. The defendants contested the suit that their names recorded correctly after there was a litigation before the consolidation operation. The suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The defendant Rais Khan admitted the claim of the plaintiff. The trial court after taking the evidence came to the conclusion that the entries are very long standing and the suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The first appellate court also upheld that the suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Against these decrees and judgments this second appeal has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. The first appellate court also upheld that the suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Against these decrees and judgments this second appeal has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. The dispute plots are recorded in the name of Smt. Shamin Jahan, respondent No. 3, Smt. Nazuk Jahan, respondent No. 4 and Smt. Noor Jahan, respondent No. 5. They were recorded on the basis of mutation done by Supervisor Kanungo fraudulently showing that Ishar-ul-Hasan Khan has died and his legal heirs are these respondents, therefore, this entry is totally bogus entry as Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan has died and his legal heirs is still alive, and has contested the suit throughout. Therefore the entry in the names of respondents No. 3 to 5 are fraudulent and fictitious entry. Before that mutation order the disputed plot was recorded in the name of Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan. It was pleaded that Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan. It was pleaded that Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan manipulated to obtain the entry in the name of his wife and two daughters i.e. respondents No. 3 to 5 in order to avoid the operation of imposition of ceiling on land holdings. This fully proves that Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan was in a position to obtain the entry at his sweet will from the revenue authorities of the Tahsil. 6. The appellant had pleaded throughout that respondent Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan got his name recorded before the consolidation operation in the revenue record by obtaining the entries in his favour by forging the records. This point was to be considered. If the entry was forget before the consolidation operation then the suit will not be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, otherwise the operation of the consolidation proceeding will affix the forget entry to be correct. The appellant has all through pleaded that the land was given on Batai to Ishar-Ul-Hasan Khan and the respondent was out during the consolidation operation when he came at the close of the consolidation Operation he moved the consolidation authorities about the wrong entry but his claim was rejected holding that his petition was time barred. In my opinion the consolidation authorities were wrong to decided that the application was time barred when there must have been allegation about the forget entry. In my opinion the consolidation authorities were wrong to decided that the application was time barred when there must have been allegation about the forget entry. There is no time limit laid down in the law to get corrected before any fraudulent and forget entry. The respondent Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan have claimed that he got the entry in his name to be recorded exclusively on the basis of any, litigation but no any proof of such litigation had been found. In these circumstances when there is so much fraud still at present then it cannot be said that the pleading of appellant is not well founded that the entry in the name of Izhar-ul-Hasan Khan is a forget one when there is a forgery in the records and on the basis of that forgery consolidation authorities has carried out the consolidation operation the suit will not be barred it should be corrected, if it is proved beyond doubt. In these circumstances I do not agree with the finding recorded by the trial court as well as of the first appellate court that the suit is barred be section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. In the circumstances of the case the present suit is not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court is also set aside on this issue and the case is remanded first appellate court to decide the appeal on other remaining issues.