JUDGMENT U. N. Sinha, J. - This appeal has been filed by the defendants and it arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for partition. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding, however, that the plaintiffs were in possession of plot no. 1633 having their house thereon. On appeal, the court of appeal below has decreed the suit by allowing the appeal. I shall state the facts in brief, as I propose to remand the appeal to the court of appeal below for re-hearing. 2. The plaintiffs' case was that one Lakshman Paswan had three sons named Rawal, Bhopal and Akal. The plaintiffs are descendants of Rawal and the defendants are descendants of Bhopal. Akal had died before the survey leaving a son named Ram Prasad Paswan. The land in suit was recorded as Jagir Khidmati, Goraiti in the names of Rawal, Bhopal and Ram Prasad. Ram Prasad died after the survey issueless. It was alleged that the plaintiffs and the defendants had come in possession over the disputed land and they had partitioned the Nakdi lands half and half, but the Jagir lands were not partitioned. Thus the plaintiffs are claiming half share in the Jagir Goraiti land of Khata no. 127. 3. The substance of the contesting defendants' case was that the Jagir lands had not been granted in lieu of past services, but were burdened with services and as Rawal and his family had left the village in question in 1317 Fasli, the plaintiffs had no concern with the Jagir lands. Rawal and his family returned from Bengal in 1328 Fasli and they began creating trouble and hence the matter was reported to the Gidhour Raj and the Raj had directed the Thikadar of the village to recognise Bhopal only as a Gorait. After sometime, the then Maharaja of Gidhour had settled the disputed lands with Bhopal free of rent permanently, being pleased with his services. That is how Bhopal and thereafter the defendants performed Goraiti work. Thus the plaintiffs' claim was refuted. 4. In support of the plaintiffs' case witnesses were, examined and certain documents were produced. After sometime, the then Maharaja of Gidhour had settled the disputed lands with Bhopal free of rent permanently, being pleased with his services. That is how Bhopal and thereafter the defendants performed Goraiti work. Thus the plaintiffs' claim was refuted. 4. In support of the plaintiffs' case witnesses were, examined and certain documents were produced. The defendants also examined witnesses and produced documents including Exhibit E of the year 1328 Fasli, which purported to be the order of the Maharaja of Gidhour directing the Thikadar to see that Rawal did not create trouble in the cultivation of the disputed Jagir land by Bhopal. On an elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on the record, the trial court accepted the contesting defendants' case, holding that defendant no. 1 was in Exclusive possession of the Jagir lands excepting plot no. 1633. It was held that Rawal and his sons had not worked as Goraits since 1328 Fasli. That is how the plaintiffs' suit failed. The court of appeal below has, it seems, not accepted either the oral or documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs', except Exhibit 3, which was the certified copy of the Khatian of Khata no. 127. In Paragraph 5 of its judgment the court of appeal below has stated, with reference to the oral evidence adduced by the parties, that, this evidence was oath against oath. Then the learned Judge has dealt with Exhibits 1 series and Exhibit 2 produced by the plaintiffs without accepting them for decreeing the plaintiffs' suit on these documents. However, on the Khatian it has been held that the holding had been given in lieu of past services and, therefore, possession of one tenant was possession of all. In my opinion, the judgment of the court of appeal below is highly unsatisfactory, as the real point in the case has not been gone into at all. Even assuming that the original grant was in lieu of past services, the case made out by the contesting defendants, with respect to the state of affairs since 1328 Fasli, by their evidence has not all been considered. It is difficult to uphold any judgment of the final court of fact which merely says that the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses and that of the defendants' witnesses are oath against oath, without dealing with the evidence and coming to its own conclusion on it. 5. It is difficult to uphold any judgment of the final court of fact which merely says that the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses and that of the defendants' witnesses are oath against oath, without dealing with the evidence and coming to its own conclusion on it. 5. I would, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below and remand the appeal for re-hearing on all points arising in the case. The appeal is allowed and the costs of this Court will abide the result. Appeal remanded.