JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This second appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Moradabad dated 18.7.1979 passed in appeal under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Moradabad dated 29.4.1978 in suit No. 237 of 1978 under Section 229-B of U.P Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Gulab and Murari, respondents filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 that the suit plot was acquired by the common ancestor Manasukh. After his death his sons were recorded in the revenue records but at present all the branches are recorded except them. Hence they prayed that they should be declared Co-Bhumidhars of the suit pots along with defendants 1st set. The suit was admitted by Mansigh defendant but it was contested by the other defendants on the ground that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit plot. After framing the issues and taking evidence the learned Sub-Divisional Officer Moradabad vide his judgment dated 29.4.1978 decreed the suit of Co-tenancy of the plaintiff. Appeal was filed by the present appellant before the Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has also dismissed that appeal, hence this second appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. The suit was fully proved by plaintiff-respondents. His branches are also recorded before the enforcement of Z.A. and L.R. Act in the revenue records. It is by mistake that their names were omitted. The pedigree has been admitted by defendant-respondent Man Singh. The appellant has not denied specifically the pedigree. Therefore, I also come to the conclusion that the suit plot was acquired by common ancestor and their descendants and Co-bhumidhars, hence there is no force in the second appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that there was consolidation in the village but plaintiff respondent never cared to be recorded over the disputed plots. The suit of Co-tenancy is not barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Act. The person who were recorded might have not denied the share of the plaintiff-respondent. Since there has been no partition during the consolidation about the holding, therefore the matter might not have been agitated there. The suit of Co-tenancy is not barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Act. The person who were recorded might have not denied the share of the plaintiff-respondent. Since there has been no partition during the consolidation about the holding, therefore the matter might not have been agitated there. The claim of the plaintiff-respondent is fully proved in the records before the consolidation. Mere omission of their names in consolidation records cannot deprive their right and title. Moreover the entry of the consolidation records is rebuttable and there is abundant evidence to rebut that entry. In these circumstances of the case the finding recorded by both the courts below is perfectly on the facts and the law. Hence this second appeal is dismissed.