K.N. Misra, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order dated 31st December 1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

2. The petitioners Bal Kishun and Dhaniram, sons of Gulley, asserted that they are the sole tenure holders having inherited the land in dispute after the death of their father, Gulley. Opposite party no. 1 Ghamandi, claiming to be son of Gulley, filed an objection under section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act praying that his name be recorded as co-tenure holder along with the petitioners, who are his real brother. The petitioners contested the claim of opposite party no. 1 asserting that he is not their real brother. The consolidation authorities have recorded a finding to the effect that Ghamandi is son of Gulley and was born posthumously and in this view of the matter the Deputy Director of Consolidation has held to be co-tenure holder entitled to 1/3rd share in the holding in dispute.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even accepting the finding recorded by the Consolidation Authorities to the effect that opposite party no. 1 was son of Gulley, but since he was born posthumou