Salil Kumar Rai, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate representing respondent no. 2.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 instituted Case No. 47 of 1996 under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') against the petitioners as well as the predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 6 to 9 praying for a decree declaring him a Bhumidhar of the suit property. The claim of respondent no. 2 was based on entries in CH Form-2A, CH Form-11 and CH Form-23 prepared during the consolidation operations held in the village under Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') which showed the father of respondent no. 2 as Bhumidhar of the suit property. The Trial Court i.e. Additional Deputy District Magistrate, Etah vide his judgment and order dated 15.6.1996 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners on the ground that the suit property was recorded as Banjar in CH Form-45 and the entries in the consolidation record regarding the name of the father of the petitioners were suspicious. Further, findings were recorded b