JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9.5.1972 passed by Shri. O.P. Sharma, Additional Commissioner, Rohikhand Division, Bareilly, in appeal no. 41 of 1971 arising out of suit no. 160 under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. Respondent nos. 1 and 2, Nabi Uddin and Mohi Uddin, had filed a suit under section 209, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, for the ejectment of Qamar Azam, appellant, and Munawar Azzam, respondent no. 6, from plot no. 341. The plaintiffs had claimed to have become the bhumidhars of the land through registered sale deed dated 8.4.1970 executed in their favour by Batulun-nissa, and alleged that the defendants had connived with the lekhpal and got fictitious entries manipulated in their favour. The defendants contested the suit by challenging the Bhumidhari rights of the plaintiffs. They alleged that the sale deed was fraudulent and that they themselves had been in possession of land in suit for more than 8 years and had acquired Sirdari rights. The courts below have decreed the suit. Qamar Azam, one of the two defendants, has come up on second appeal. 4. The first ground taken in the second appeal is that the entries in revenue recodes are presumed to be correct, and the entries from 1371 Fasli showing the possession of appellants were no doubt challenged by the respondents, but no issue was framed in this regard and as such the court below have committed illegality in saying that the said entries were forged. The courts below have found that the defendants are recorded in possession of the land from 1371 Fasli, but held that the entries are to be ignored as they are forged. I find that the plaintiff respondents had stated in para 3 of the plaint the defendants had in conspiracy with the lekhpal got fictitious entries made in the land records in their favour. The defendants had, on the other hand, denied this in para 6 of their Written Statement. I find that the plaintiff respondents had stated in para 3 of the plaint the defendants had in conspiracy with the lekhpal got fictitious entries made in the land records in their favour. The defendants had, on the other hand, denied this in para 6 of their Written Statement. As the courts below have based their judgment on a finding that these entries were fictitious and forged, it was necessary for the trial court to famed the following issue: "Whether the entries in the land records in favour of the defendants are fictitious and forged ?" Omission to frame this issue had vitiated the judgment of the courts below. 5. The second ground taken in the appeal is that in State v. Malkhan and others, Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1971 it was decided that the said entries from 1375 Fasli to 1378 Fasli were correct and not forged and the learned Additional Commissioner committed an illegality in holding that the entries were forged ones. As seen above, the plaintiff-respondents had made an allegation in the plaint that the entries in the land records in favour of the defendants were forged. They also stated in para 4 of their plaint that they had filed a complaint under section 218/420 Indian Penal Code on 28.11.1970 against the defendants and the lekhpal. The courts below have recorded the finding that the entries are fictitious and forged but there is on record the judgment of the Temporary Session Judge. Buduan dated 16.11.71 in sessions Trial No. 208 of 1971 in which he acquitted the defendants and the lekhpal on the ground that the charge is not proved. This judgment was not before the trial court, as the trial court had delivered the judgment on 27.10.1971, but it was certainly before the Additional Commissioner who delivered his judgment on 9.5.1972. The Additional Commissioner has certainly erred in law in not considering the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 6. The trial ground taken in the second appeal is that the court have no duty to exercise the role of the an expert and the courts below have erred in law in doing so. This contention may be accepted. Comparison of handwriting in an Expert's job. For this purposes, the courts should refer the document to a Handwriting Expert whose opinion should be obtained and thereafter the Expert should be examined in court. This contention may be accepted. Comparison of handwriting in an Expert's job. For this purposes, the courts should refer the document to a Handwriting Expert whose opinion should be obtained and thereafter the Expert should be examined in court. Gross miscarriage of justice would arise if the courts assume the role of Handwriting Expert as has happened in the present case. 7. The last ground taken in the second appeal is that the courts below have not considered the oral and documentary evidence on record. This ground is also substantiated. Thus, the learned Additional Commissioner has observed that "Qamar Azam, has admitted in his cross-examination that his possession over the land in suit was for 8/9years but that it was not adverse possession and that this admission shows that the entries of adverse possession in the name of the defendants are farzi and fictitious". I am afraid the lower appellate court has not read the evidence property and has misconstrued it. What Qamar Azam has said is that he is in continuous possession of the land in suit for 8/9 years, that this possession is not Gasibana, but that the land belonged to his grandmother and he was cultivating it. This statement only means that the defendant-appellant's case is that he did not forcibly take any body else's land that the land belonged to his grandmother. The implication would be that the possession of the defendant is adverse, not in relation to his grandmother but in relation to any third party. Thus, his possession is relation to the plaintiff-respondents, Nabi Uddin and Mohi Uddin is definitely adverse. There is considerable oral evidence produced by both the sides and I am constrained to remarks that both the courts below, particularly the lower appellate court, has generally ignored this evidence. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Mustafa v. Abu Bakar and others, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 361 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "This findings having been reached without proper pleadings and necessary issues, the same cannot find any of the parties to the suit though it does indicate the serious injustice that is likely to happen to the appellant because of his defective pleadings". This observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly implies that the judgments of the courts below have become vitiated on account of an issue regarding the fictitious and farzi entries in the land records being made in connivance with the lekhpal not having been framed by the trial court. 9. The result of the foregoing discussion is that I hereby allow the second appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below and remand the case to the trial court for deciding the case afresh after framing proper issues in the light of the above observations.