JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member. - This is an appeal filed by Medai and Ram Bharose against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.75 passed by Additional Commissioner, Faizabad. 2. The facts giving rise to this appellate are that Srimati Sukha had filed a suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration that she was a Bhumdhar alongwith, Bhagwat, defendant no. 1 and the other defendants had no right or title to the land in suit and their names had been erroneously recorded over it. The suit was contested by Madai and others on the ground that it was an ancestral holding and they had share in it and were co tenant of the same. During the pendency of the suit, Srimati Sukha died and Bhagwat moved an application that he was the only heir of Srimati Sukha and be transposed as plaintiffs. His application was allowed and he was transposed as plaintiff. The trial court after considering the evidence and circumstances of the case dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Bhagwat preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. It was against this order that the present appeal has been filed by Media and others. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record 4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that issue No. 7 a very material issue. The plaintiff's suit was held to be not maintainable on finding recorded by the trial court on Issue no. 7. The learned Additional Commissioner did not meet this objection and reversed the order of the trial court without asssigning any rhyme or reason or commenting in any way upon the finding on issue no. 7 and as such the order of the Additional Commissioner was bad in law. 5. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. I find that he did not tough this finding on issue no. 7 recorded by the trial court and yet revered its orders and he was in my opinion, therefore, no justified in reversing it unless he would have met it out. 5. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. I find that he did not tough this finding on issue no. 7 recorded by the trial court and yet revered its orders and he was in my opinion, therefore, no justified in reversing it unless he would have met it out. My attention was also drawn to the fact that the learned Additional Commissioner did not consider the oral evidence of the parties and based his findings only on documentary evidence which was also a must. He had only remarked a line regarding the statement of Medai, whereas the trial court had fully appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence on record and to set aside the finding of the trial court it was but must for the lower appellate court to have properly appreciated the documentary as well as oral evidence on record. This contention has also been borne out from the record. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants also pointed it out that by remaining twenty one years in possession the appellants at any rate had acquired the rights by estoppel and acquiescence and the lower appellate court lost sight of it. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, said that no such plea was taken by the appellant in the court below and, therefore, no evidence could be led on this point and hence this plea cannot be taken in the second appeal now. No doubt, it is a legal point but the appellants should have taken this plea at least before the first appellate court. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Additional Commissioner is set aside and the first appeal is remanded back to him to rehear it and dispose it of according to law after meeting out the findings recorded by the trial court. The appellants may be given an opportunity of taking the plea of estoppel and acquiescence and the lower appellate court in order to decided it may allow opportunity to the parties of giving any further evidence as the parties, may desire.