JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J.- This second appeal has been instituted at the instance of the plaintiff who had filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed on the allegations that defendant No. 1 was the sirdar of the land in question in which he had share. The land revenue payable for the same was quite heavy but the land being unproductive, it was not possible to make any profit by cultivation. A large amount of land revenue became in arrears and, therefore, proceedings against defendant No. 1 were started by the State in which he was arrested. The plaintiff paid the arrears at that time and defendant No. 1 gave a writing in which he acknowledged that the plaintiff was in possession of his share of the land and was also paying the revenue dues and the defendant No. 1 is neither in possession of the same nor in any way concerned with the land. Subsequently defendant No. 1 falsely acquired bhumidhari rights and transferred the land to defendant No. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 21.3.1968. It is this sale deed which the plaintiff seeks to get cancelled by means of this suit on the allegations that defendant No. 1 was not the bhumidhar of the land in question. Simultaneously, with the filing of the suit the plaintiff also started proceedings under the revenue court under Section 229 (3) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against Ishtiak Hussain which was decided against him in 1970. Against this decision the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Bareilly which was allowed in 1972. The case was again remanded back to the trial court. When the matter was again taken up it was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that Furqan Ahmad defendant No. 1 was not the Bhumidhar of the land in question. In view of these facts, which have arisen during the pendency of this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the case may be remanded to the lower appellate court to decide the same in the light of the fresh circumstances. I also feel that the entire case of the plaintiff was dependent on the fact as to whether or not Furqan Ahmad was the Bhumidhar of the land in question. I also feel that the entire case of the plaintiff was dependent on the fact as to whether or not Furqan Ahmad was the Bhumidhar of the land in question. In case, he was not the Bhumidhar, then he had no right to make a transfer of the land in question to defendant No. 2 and the sale deed in question would be rendered infructuous. For this purpose, it would be necessary that the case may be remanded to the lower appellate court for re-examining the matter in the light of the decisions of the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly and of the trial court after remand. 2. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the case is remanded to the lower appellate court with the direction that it should re-admit the same to its original member and decided the same afresh after taking into account the decision of the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly and the Assistant Collector, Moradabad dated 15.4.1974. The parties may be given opportunity to file any other document in this connection, if deemed proper by the court below. However, under the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs of this appeal.