JUDGMENT R.R. Srivastava, Member - Deotadin alias Baba son of Bhagwati of village Bhuta Kalan, Pargana Kheepraha, District Jaunpur tiled second appeal No. 244 of 1972-73 on January 8, 1973 against the judgment and decree dated October 23, 1972 of Additional Commissioner, Varanasi passed in appeal against the judgment and decree dated February 6, 1971 of Assistant Collector 1st Class, Jaunpur, in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Bhagvati Singh, father of the appellant, filed a suit under Section 229-B Z.A. and L.R. Act in respect of plot No. 171 (72 Dec.) correspondent to old plot No. 30911 (72 Dec.) for declaration of sole Bhumidhari rights as grove holder with the allegations that the land originally belonged to Maha Raja Vibhuti Narain Singh of Ramnagar, Varanasi that he transferred the land through registered sale-deed dated September 18, 1959 that his name was recorded in mutation proceedings that during consolidation in Extracts of forms C.H. 5, 9, 11, and 23 his name was recorded that defendants No. 3 to 10 have no concern with the land, that defendants have intimate relations with the Lekhpal and at the instant of ancestors of defendants No. 3 to 10, the Lekhpal came to him and obtained his signature on a blank piece of paper and a form representing that in his capacity as Pradhan his signatures were left on some papers that in collusion with the Lekhpal and the Tahsil officials names of defendants aforesaid were added on the land that he came to know of the said act in February 1967 that since defendants have no concern with the land their names are wrongly recorded, hence the suit. 3. Sant Prasad, Ram Prasad, Devi Prasad, Mata Prasad and Suryanath filed a written statement through Sri Ram Chandra Shukla, Advocate guardian of minor saying that the grove was the ancestral property of the parties, that it did no belong to Maharaja Benaras that the land was declared surplus under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and if any sale-deed executed by the said Maharaja thereafter, it is not binding that the land was also settled with the parties on July 1, 1967 after it was declared surplus and plaintiff had admitted claim of the defendants, and such the suit is barred by Section 115 of Evidence Act. Written statement on similar lines was filed by Mahadeo and Bachai Singh adding that the land was acquired by Chaunharji Singh, common ancestor of the parties. 4. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, the trial court decreed the suit on February 6, 1971. In appeal lower appellant court allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and held defendants to be Co-Bhumidhars of the land in suit. Second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff's son. Deota Din. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. plaintiff's case is that he acquired the land under registered sale deed from Maharaja Banaras. Defendant respondents case is that they along with plaintiff were allotted this land after it was declared surplus under The in position of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. That the land had character of grove is not denied. Copy of the order of the prescribed authority declaring the land as surplus has not been tiled nor notification declaring such land surplus under Section 14 of the said Act has also been tiled. Much stress was Laid on the undated statement of the plaintiff in some ceiling proceeding but from a perusal of the certified copy it is not known in which case it was recorded and on what date it was recorded. If the land has the character of grove, as is admitted to the parties, then definitely it is exempt from operation of the ceiling Act. Them is absolutely no finding by both the trial as well as the lower appellate courts about the character of land if the land has character of grove then there is no question of its being declared surplus and consequent settlement thereof with the parties, and the sale deed by the previous owner. Maharaja Banaras, will be given due weight. Therefore, the judgment and decree of both the trial as well as the lower appellate court are set aside and the case remanded to the trial court with the direction to requisition the ceiling file of notification under Section 14 of Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and the file settling the land with the parties, and then decide the suit after heating the parties. Costs to abide the result of the suit.