JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member - This is a second appeal against the decree and judgement dated July 16, 1977 passed by Sri R.N. Srivastava, Addl. Commissioner., Allahabad confirming the decree dated September 30, 1976 passed by the Asstt. Collector, First Class in a suit under Section 229-B, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Behari, since deceased and substituted by his sons Babu Lal, Bhai Lal, Ram Lal, Radhey Shyam and Ram Sumer, had filed a suit seeking declaration of his sole Bhumidhari right in plot No. 362/1 in village Baharpur, and seeking the ejectment of the defendants No. 2 and 3, Ramdeo and Ram Sumer, sons of Kailash, as trespasser. The suit was contested by Ramdeo who has come up in second appeal. 4. The grounds taken in the Second Appeal are, firstly, that both the courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit for sole tenancy when it is admitted and also found by the trial court that half share belongs to the appellant and his brother Ram Sumer by virtue of a sale deed in their favour, secondly, that the learned Additional Commissioner failed to decide the material point whether Radhey Behari is the same man as Radhey Shyam or Behari is a different person and thirdly, that the judgement of the lower appellate court does not decide the points in controversy and is not in accordance with order 41, Rule 31, C.P.C. 5. The impugned judgement of the learned Additional Commissioner cannot be sustained as it is not in accordance with order 41, Rule 31, C.P.C. The learned Additional Commissioner has disposed of the merits of the case in a single para, para 4 of his judgement. Law has cast upon the first appellate court the duty to scrutinise the oral and documentary evidence in detail and thereafter to record findings of fact. It is curious to note that in the present case the learned Additional Commissioner has not considered the evidence at all. Thus the plaintiff had produced two witnesses, Raj Narain (P.W. 1) and Behari (P.W. 2). The defendant had also produce two witnesses, namely Raghuraj Singh (D.W. 1) and Ramdeo (D.W. 2). What to say of considering their evidence, the learned Additional Commissioner has not made the slightest reference to it. Thus the plaintiff had produced two witnesses, Raj Narain (P.W. 1) and Behari (P.W. 2). The defendant had also produce two witnesses, namely Raghuraj Singh (D.W. 1) and Ramdeo (D.W. 2). What to say of considering their evidence, the learned Additional Commissioner has not made the slightest reference to it. Again, he has not subjected the documentary evidence to a proper scrutiny. It will be judicially improper for the second appellate court to perform the functions of the first appellate court and to fill up the lacuna in the judgement of the first appellate court. The findings recorded by the first appellate court cannot be upheld as they are not based upon a consideration of evidence at all. 6. The result is that I hereby low the second appeal, set aside the judgement of the learned Additional Commissioner and remand the first appeal to him for rehearing and decision afresh in accordance with law.