JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - Thus appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. The Respondents filed an objection u/s 9 Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to be the cosharers in the sirdari holding in dispute. The Appellant contested the claim. According to him he was the exclusive sirdar of the plots in dispute. The Consolidation Officer held that Bhurey alone was entitled to be recorded as Sirdar. He dismissed the objections filed by the Respondents. On appeal the findings were reversed by it he Settlement Officer. He directed that the names pf all the parties be recorded as co-sharers. The matter was take if to the Deputy Director in revision. He allowed the, revision and restored the order of the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved, the Respondents filed a writ petition and succeeded. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Deputy Director and sent back the case to him for decision afresh. This time Bhurey has come up in appeal.

2. It appears that one Chuttan was recorded as Sirdar of the plots in dispute. The Appellant Bhurey on 8-11-1956 filed a suit for declaration that he was the sole sirdar of the plots in dispute and that the revenue records be corrected acco