JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the order and decree dated June 9, 1972 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad modifying and reversing the decree passed by the Asstt. Collector, First Class, Kanpur in a suit under Section 229-B of Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the records. 3. The appellant Pyare Lal along with Suraj Prasad respondent No. 4 had filed a suit claiming for declaration of their Sirdari rights in 8 Bighas 14 Biswas areas of plot No. 144 in village Birhar. The suit was contested by the Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P. claiming that the suit was barred under Section 49 of U.P. C.H. Act. Jai Chandra, Vishwanath and Dwarka, defendant-respondents 1, 2 and 3 also contested the suit on the same ground. The trial court partly decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs to be Sirdar in possession of 4 Bighas 14 Biswas of plot No. 144 and also Kabiz over the remaining area. The Addl. Commissioner has, however, modified the trial court's order and decreed the suit only for 1 Bigha and 17 Biswas area. Only Pyare Lal has come up in second appeal before this court. 4. The grounds taken in second appeal, firstly, is that the appellant is entitled to 8 Bighas 14 Biswas both by virtue of title and his possession and in any event he is entitled to 4 Bighas 14 Biswas on extreme west including the Pucca well, secondly, that the appellant was allotted 5 Bighas 8 Biswas during consolidation proceedings and the finding of the lower appellate court is without any basis and not supported by any evidence on record; thirdly, that while the trial court had discussed both the oral and documentary evidence the lower appellate court had completely excluded the oral evidence and lastly that it is also admitted to the defendant-respondent that the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to 5 Bighas 8 Biswas area and as such the order of the lower appellate court is against the pleadings of the parties. 5. The Judgment of the learned Addl. Commissioner is most unsatisfactory whereas the trial court has judicially considered and discussed all the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Addl. Commissioner has not considered the oral evidence in any manner. 5. The Judgment of the learned Addl. Commissioner is most unsatisfactory whereas the trial court has judicially considered and discussed all the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Addl. Commissioner has not considered the oral evidence in any manner. It is recognized principle of law that where a court of first appeal reverses and modifies the finding of the trial court it must scrutinize in detail the entire oral and documentary evidence. 6. Apart from that the learned Addl. Commissioner has failed to consider the written statement of the defendants 1 to 3 and also the extracts from the consolidation records. Consolidation of Holdings has taken place in the village Plot No. 144 was numbered 133 before consolidation. The defendant-respondents have admitted in para 8 of their written statement that the plaintiff was the Sirdar of 5 Bighas 8 Biswas area in plot No. 133 (old). This is also proved by the extract of C.H. Form 2, C.H. Form 25 and C.H. Form 40 shows that plot No. 133 area 8 Bighas 14 Biswas, had been given the new number 144. C.H. Form 23 shows that the plaintiff were declared Sirdar of plot No. 133 with an area of 4 Bighas 14 Biswas, the remaining 14 Biswas being taken away from him. An advocate Commissioners was appointed by the trial court who has given a detailed report along with a site map after a local inspection. The Addl. Commissioner has mis-read and mis-construed all the documentary evidence. The Addl. Commissioner's finding that the plaintiff was Sirdar of 1 Bigha 17 Biswas area of plot No. 144 is not based on any evidence but on conjectures and surmises. The position is that the rights of the parties had already been determined during the Consolidation proceedings and the revenue courts could not have ignored such adjudication. As the trial court has rightly observed that in C.H. Forms 11 and 45 the plaintiffs were recorded over plot No. 133 (old) but in C.H. Form 23 an area of 14 Biswas was taken out from this plot and the plaintiffs were allotted some other plot in lieu thereof. As the trial court has rightly observed that in C.H. Forms 11 and 45 the plaintiffs were recorded over plot No. 133 (old) but in C.H. Form 23 an area of 14 Biswas was taken out from this plot and the plaintiffs were allotted some other plot in lieu thereof. The plaintiffs in their correction application presented before the S.D.O. in 1965 admitted that they never applied for correction in Chakbandi, so they are bound under Section 49 C.H. Act and they shall be deemed to be tenant of plot No. 144 area 4 Bighas 14 Biswas only. 7. The Judgment of the learned Addl. Commissioner is completely erroneous. The Judgment of the trial court has a slight error in as much as there is no provision in Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act to declare anybody Qabiz. Section 229-B is only for declaration of rights as a tenure holder. The word Qabiz merely denotes possession and is not recognized as a legal form of tenure. 8. The result is that I hereby allow the second appeal and set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. The appellant along with respondent No. 4 are declared to be Sirdars in possession of 4 Bighas 14 Biswas area of plot No. 144 on the extreme west including Pucca well.