( 1 ) LAND in dispute was acquired by Hulas who admittedly was petitioners ancestor. In consolidation proceedings it was claimed by opposite parties that Hulass son Sughar had two sons Shivraj and Nanhkoo and petitioners were descendants of Sheorai whereas opposite parties were descendants of Nanhkoo. This was denied and Nanhkoo was said to be son of one Todi. The entire dispute therefore was whether Sughar had one or two sons. It has been found by deputy Director that since 1308 Fasli it were the ancestor of petitioners branch who were exclusively recorded. He however endorsed finding of appellate authority, and accepted claim of opposite parties of co-tenancy because written statement filed by petitioner in suit under Section 229b filed by opposite parties, for declaration that they were co-sirdars which abated due to enforcement of consolidation the petitioners no doubt denied that opposite parties were not of their family but it was not specifically alleged that Nanhkoo was son of Todi. He further did not find any truth in statement of Musafir examined on behalf of petitioner that petitioner and opposite parties were members of different family and that the land