JUDGMENT M. Saidullah, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, dated 28-6-1971 in appeal no. 95 to 1969 dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, District Jaunpur, on 29-10-1969 decreeing on suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the records of the lower courts. 3. This appeal has to be allowed because both the courts below have acted with material irregularity and have not complied with certain basic principles of law in writing a judgment. 4. The dispute centres round the crucial fact whether the land in suit was acquired by the common ancestor, Ram Prasad or it was acquired long after his death of Udit, Sheo Narain, Devi Din and Smt. Batasiya, who were the descendants of four separate branches coming down from the said Ram Prasad. It is an admitted fact that both the parties to the suit had examined two witnesses each before the trial court in support of their respective claims. In addition, a large number of documents were also filed by the parties. The learned trial court has not even mentioned in its judgment that any oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Even such a mention does not find place in the judgment of the trial court. It has been repeatedly held that oral evidence is vital of the decision in issues before a court and it may be believed or not believed, but a court empowered to decided the question of fact cannot ignore it. Therefore the trial court committed a grave error of law in ignoring the oral evidence that had been adduced before it. This view has been expressed in the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1978 NOC 154 (All). Similar view was expressed in 1973 R.D. 29 wherein it was laid down that the practice of ignoring relevant oral evidence in the face of documentary evidence is not at all warranted by law. That ruling applies with all force to the facts of the present case. In appeal the learned Additional Commissioner Committed an even graver irregularity by observation that the plaintiffs examined two witnesses who are Ram Kumar appellate no. That ruling applies with all force to the facts of the present case. In appeal the learned Additional Commissioner Committed an even graver irregularity by observation that the plaintiffs examined two witnesses who are Ram Kumar appellate no. 1, and Mahadeo, and their statements have been rightly disbelieved by the lower court as they are not supported by any documentary evidence. The contesting respondent examined himself and one witness. Their statements have been rightly believed by the lower court". It shows that the learned lower appellate court had not been even cared to read the judgment of the trial court. This has led to miscarriage of justice and in this view I find that the observation of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 1122 of 1970 published in 1974 URC-615 applies comprehensively on this point. It is well settled that a final court of fact must consider the oral and documentary evidence before giving its final verdict on a question of fact. In the present case, the learned Additional Commissioner has certainly misread and misstated the contests of the judgments of the trial court because the trial court has itself omitted any mention of the witnesses who had given evidence before that court. In this view the ruling reported in 1977 R.D. 287 has proper application, because the learned Additional Commissioner has omitted to consider vital pieces of evidence, has misread and misconstrued the judgment of the trial court and has based his conclusion not on evidence with due regard to a proper consideration of the entire material evidence including both oral and documentary evidence. 5. Learned counsels for both the parties have taken me through the numerous documentary evidence filed by the parties, but it will serve no useful purpose for me to enter into a discussion of this evidence at this stage. The present appeal brings out a peculiar feature inasmuch as the trial court has not even mentioned the existence of the oral evidence adduced before that court while the lower appellate court has not cared to discuss the relevant documents in its judgment. The findings of fact by the lower appellate court is essential for a just decision of the second appeal, but the judgment has been written in a perfunctory manner. Law has been laid down on this point by the Supreme Court as reported in A.I.R. 1968 Page-467. The findings of fact by the lower appellate court is essential for a just decision of the second appeal, but the judgment has been written in a perfunctory manner. Law has been laid down on this point by the Supreme Court as reported in A.I.R. 1968 Page-467. It is incumbent on the lower appellate court to take into consideration all the material evidence on record before arriving at any conclusion. Ignoring any important piece of evidence on record will vitiate the judgment of the lower appellate court, and in the instant case the learned lower appellate court has committed such a grave irregularity that cannot be overlooked in appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellate has argued that in view of these grave irregularities the appeal should be allowed and the case remanded to the trial court for decision in accordance with the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this argument and has counter argued that substantial justice will not be done by remanding the case. In view of the grave irregularity committed by the lower courts it appears necessary that the points at issue should be properly and correctly decided by the trial court and all material evidence that is on record, whether oral or documentary, should be looked into and discussed in detail setting down the reasons for believing or not believing the documents as well as the statements of the witnesses. In that way only substantial justice will be done and it is a fit case which should be remanded as the judgment of both the courts below are no judgments in the eye of law. 7. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below and remand the case to the trial court with the direction that a clear finding should be recorded whether the land in suit was acquired by Ram Prasad or by Devi Din, Udit, Sheo Narain and Smt. Batasiya, much after the death of the Ram Prasad, the common ancestor. The devolution of the shares of the parties should also be looked into and the documentary and oral evidence should be closely scrutinised. It is not necessary for me to consider the merits of the case as propounded by the learned counsels for the parties. On the legal point referred to above, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. The devolution of the shares of the parties should also be looked into and the documentary and oral evidence should be closely scrutinised. It is not necessary for me to consider the merits of the case as propounded by the learned counsels for the parties. On the legal point referred to above, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. In this context, I would also like to observe that the trial court should also consider whether in a proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act shares of the parties can be determined or whether in view of the provisions of section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act such a decision will fall outside the scope of section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.