SATISH CHANDRA, J.:- The plots in dispute were Khudkast holding of Maniya Singh He died on 16-6-1948 leaving two sons, Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh. Surendra Singh filed a suit for ejectment of the respondents Nos. 4 anal 5 from the plots in dispute in the year 1965. It appears that in the same year consolidation proceedings commenced in the village, with the result that the suit stood abated.

2. In consolidation proceedings respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed an objection claiming themselves to be sirdars of the plots in dispute by virtue of their uninterrupted long possession. Both the petitioners, namely, Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh contested the objection.

3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that at the time of death of Maniya Singh his sons were minors. Suremdra Singh became major some time in the year 1955, while Virendra Singh became major in the year 1964. Since Surendra Singh could have filed the suit for ejectment of the respondents within three years of his attaining majority, the suit filed by him in the year 1965 was barred by limitation. The respondents were in continuous possession of the plots in dispute for a long time; they became sirdars thereof. He directed that their names be recorded as such on the plots in dispute.

4. The original tenure-holders have fled this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the hearing of the writ petition, it was argued that one co-sharer cannot give a valid discharge without the concurrence of the other co-sharer, under Section 7 of the Limitation Act, hence the suit was not barred by time. The learned single Judge felt that the question of law raised in the writ petition was of general importance. He, accordingly, referred the case to a Division Bench. That is how the matter has come before us.

5. Section 209 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act provides for a suit for ejectment of a trespasser. Under it, a suit can be filed by a Bhumidhar, Sardar or Asami concerned. Section 13 of the U. P. General Clauses Act provides that unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa. The word "Bhumidhar" occurring in Section 209 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act will also mean Bhumdhars where there are more than one person entitled to the plots in dispute as Bhumidhar. In the present case the two brothers were Bhumidhars. Section 209 will cover both of them. In other words, both of them were entitled to file the suit under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

6. Section 210 of the said Act provides that if the suit is not brought under Section 209, the person retaining possession shall become Sirdar where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar. Section 209, inter alia, lays down the condition that a person should not only have taken or retained possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law for the time being in force, but also without the consent of the Bhumidhar concerned. So, if there are more than one Bhumidhar entitled to a holding, the trespasser must be in possession

without the consent of all of them. Proof of lack of consent of one of them, or proof of consent of one of them, will not enure to the benefit of the trespasser in acquiring sirdari rights under Section 210 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, even in case where the suit is not brought under Section 209 of the said Act.

7. It is suggested that where there are more than one co-sharers in the Bhumidhari holding, their joint consent is necessary.

Section 7 of the Limitation Act provides:-

7. "Whether one of several persons jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is under any such disability, and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against them all; but, where no such discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them until one of them becomes