JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the order and decree dated March 13, 1972 passed by Sri C. David, Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, in appeal No. 579 (Kanpur) arising out of a suit under Sections 229-B/176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 3. Respondent no. 1 Gaya Prasad, had filed a suit under Sections 229-B/176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act seeking declaration of his co-Sirdari rights in certain Bhumidhari and Sirdari holdings in village Kumsarai and praying for partition of his share. The trial court had decreed the suit. This order has been upheld by the Additional Commissioner. The defendants have now come up in second appeal. 4. A number of grounds have been taken up in this second appeal. A significant ground is that the trial court did not frame any issue regarding the sequence of death and as such the share calculation was wrong. It was essential to frame an issue on the sequence of death and a finding on this point was necessary. Without determination of this point the shares could not be calculated properly. The learned Additional Commissioner has given no finding on this point. Another ground is that the plaintiff respondent had himself admitted in his statement under Order X, C.P.C. that he had only share. The statement made under Order 10, C.P.C. is conclusive and both the courts below have erred in allotting ? share to the plaintiff. The third significant ground is that the decree prepared in civil suit of 1953 operates as res judicata and the findings of the courts below to the contrary is erroneous. Another important ground is that the oral evidence has not been trashed either by the trial court or by the lower appellate court. 5. There is substance in all these contentions. I have looked into the statements of the plaintiff-respondent Ganga Prasad under Order X C.P.C. in which he has clearly stated that his share in plot Nos. 632, 637, 639 and 642 (Schedule B of the plaint) is and that of the defendants is also . It is indeed amazing that in spite of this clear cut admission the courts below have decreed ? share in these plots to the plaintiff-respondents. 632, 637, 639 and 642 (Schedule B of the plaint) is and that of the defendants is also . It is indeed amazing that in spite of this clear cut admission the courts below have decreed ? share in these plots to the plaintiff-respondents. The learned Additional Commissioner has clearly taken a wrong view of law in stating that the trial court was not bound by this statement of the plaintiff-respondent claiming only share and was right in decreeing the ? share. The correct view of law has been stated in Abdul Aziz v. Mariyam Bibi and another, A.I.R. 1926 Alld. 710 in which it has been held that admission made by a party under Order 10, Rule 1 are conclusive against him. Again I see no reason why the courts below have not considered the oral evidence even though such evidence is sketchy. 6. Again there is on record a decree of the civil suit between the parties in the court of the Munsif, Haveli, Kanpur (Suit No. 454/53 decided on November 10, 1953) the trial court had framed an issue whether this suit was barred by res judicata and had held that res judicata will apply to certain plots and not to other plots. Even though in the first appeal before the Additional Commissioner the ground was specifically taken that the decree prepared in the civil suit of 1953 clearly operates as res judicata and the finding of the learned trial court to the contrary is erroneous. The learned Additional Commissioner has failed to consider this and has not recorded any decision on the question. The result is that I hereby allow the second appeal, set aside the impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner and remand the case to him for decision of the first appeal on merits afresh in the light of the observations made above.