JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated March 24, 1969 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division in Appeal No. 77/197 of 1968 arising out of suit No. 48 of 1967-68 under Section 229-B/209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Respondent No. 1 Shamshad Khan had filed a suit alleging that he was the Sirdar in possession of plot No. 2048, area 0-10-0 situated in Qasba Rudauli and seeking ejectment of the defendant-appellant Ibrahim as a trespasser. Ibrahim, on the other hand, claimed to have purchased the plot in suit by a registered sale deed dated January 2, 1923 and claimed to be its Sirdar. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff-respondent is a Sirdar of the plot and decreed the suit. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the courts below have erred in law in relying on the extract of the Khatauni which did not mention the relevant year and which could not be treated as a certified copy of the original. The courts below further erred in law in presuming the said extract to be that for 1360 Fasli when the extract did not show as to which year it did relate. 5. A perusal of the record shows that learned Additional Commissioner has stated that 'in the Khatauni of 1360 Fasli Bakridi, father of the plaintiff, was recorded as tenure-holder of the land in dispute'. On this point the trial court has observed as follows: "There is another Khatauni on record which does not bear the year but is described in the list as Khatauni 1360 Fasli'. This document records Bakridi over the plot in dispute with a duration of 15 years'. I have persued the original record. There is no mention of the year on the true copy of the extract of Khatauni referred to by the courts below and the courts below have clearly erred in law in making an unwarranted presumption that it relates to the year 1360 Fasli. Under the Land Records Manual a Khatauni is the record of rights which is prepared by the collector every year or at such intervals as may be prescribed. Thus, no Khatauni can be prepared without mentioning the year. Under the Land Records Manual a Khatauni is the record of rights which is prepared by the collector every year or at such intervals as may be prescribed. Thus, no Khatauni can be prepared without mentioning the year. This means that either the alleged true copy of the Khatauni is not a genuine document at all or that by some omission the year has not been mentioned in the copy. The courts below could have easily known the correct situation by asking the plaintiff-respondent to file a corrected true copy of the Khatauni and, if necessary, by summoning the original Khatauni. They were certainly not justified in making the presumption that the Khatauni related to 1360 Fasli." 6. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the registered sale deed dated January 2, 1923 proved the title of the defendant appellant. The area of the plot mentioned in the sale deed tallied with the land in suit. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this fact coupled with the statement of the defendant-appellant that the sale deed related to the land to suit, was sufficient to prove that it was indeed so. The courts below have erred in law in holding that there was nothing to show that the sale deed related to the plot in suit. In any case, they could have called upon any of the parties to file the Fardemutabiqat under the provisions of the C.P.C. for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. This contention also must be upheld. It is obvious that since 1923 plot numbers in the village have changed. The courts below could have and should have, therefore, called upon any of the parties to file a Fardemutabigat to see whether or not the sale deed related to the plot in suit. They could not have made presumption without suitable evidence that the sale deed did not relate to the plot in dispute. 7. A number of other grounds have been raised which need not be considered here. The above discussion would show that the judgments of the courts below are vitiated in law. I therefore, allow the second appeal, set aside the orders of the courts below and remand the case to the trial court for decision afresh. 7. A number of other grounds have been raised which need not be considered here. The above discussion would show that the judgments of the courts below are vitiated in law. I therefore, allow the second appeal, set aside the orders of the courts below and remand the case to the trial court for decision afresh. The trial court shall give the plaintiff-respondent the opportunity to file a corrected true copy of the Khatauni showing the year and also provide the defendant-appellant the opportunity to file the Fardemutabiqat relating to plot mentioned in the registered sale deed.