JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a review application against the Board's Judgment dated November 13, 1975 in second appeal No. 157 of 1969-70/Kheri on the ground that no court nor even Board had decided any share of the plaintiffs much less share of each party, that the Board has not said that the final decree be prepared, that the plots covered by the Patta dated February 25, 1948 have not been correctly noticed by the Board in para 4 of the Judgment and the plot numbers 55, 72, 89, 129 and 181 have been omitted, that the family settlement had take place in 1950 and it was only a memorandum which was written on January 25, 1951, that the plaintiff Habibul Rehman Khan had signed it as also Fazlur Rehman Khan and Azizul Rehman Khan. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. In the trial court, it was a suit for partition tiled by Habibul Rehman Khan which was dismissed by the learned trial court and the Judgment was confirmed by the first appellate court. The defendant's plea was that there was a family settlement in 1950 supported by the document dated January 25, 1951 by which Habibul Rehman Khan did not get any share and there was a Patta also of 1948 in view of which over the plots covered by the Patta the plaintiff was entitled to any share. The Board, however, held that the document written on January 25, 1951 being not registered, had no evidentiary value and allowed the appeal in the extent of the plots covered by the family partition. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued on the four points mentioned in para I above. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that it is not correct to say that there is no decree by the Board for the decree in this case means the shares prayed for in the plaint which is 161/765. He further argued that the preliminary decree and the final decree will be made on the plaintiff's application to be made hereafter. 5. It is, no doubt, correct that there was no occasion to decide any share of the plaintiff or the defendant when the two courts below dismissed the suit. He further argued that the preliminary decree and the final decree will be made on the plaintiff's application to be made hereafter. 5. It is, no doubt, correct that there was no occasion to decide any share of the plaintiff or the defendant when the two courts below dismissed the suit. It is further a fact that judgment of the Board is wholly aimed at discarding the document Ex-A-3 written on January 25, 1951 as inadmissible in evidence the Patta of February 25, 1958 has, however, been relied upon and the appeal to that extent has been dismissed. In the result, it was also necessary to find out the share of the plaintiff with reference to the plots covered to be partitioned. But this has not been done and for this reason, the decision is incomplete. It is also a fact that no precise preliminary decree is there nor is there any order to prepare a final decree. In the plots covered by the Patta mentioned by the learned trial court and by the Board, we find a discrepancy in respect of plot number 55 mentioned in the review application and no other discrepancy is discovered. As regards the family settlement, the applicant's counsel has not shown any finding by the courts below that the document related to some family settlement earlier arrived at in 1950. However, we did notice that the learned trial court and the first appellate court have dismissed the suit relying on the family arrangement on the basis of all oral and documentary evidence and not on the only document Fx. A-3. After it was held that Ex-A-3 would not be considered in evidence, no finding is given on the basis of the remaining oral and documentary evidence. It is a fact that the plaintiff himself admitted the family arrangement. To the circumstances, equating the fact of discarding Ex. A-3 to discarding all the evidence in support of the family arrangement, is, no doubt, an error apparent on the face of the record, besides other errors already mentioned above. In the circumstances, to feel that the Board's judgment dated November 13, 1975 needs be called and the appeal has to be decided after taking into consideration all the factors involved and relevant to the decision of this second appeal. 6. In the circumstances, to feel that the Board's judgment dated November 13, 1975 needs be called and the appeal has to be decided after taking into consideration all the factors involved and relevant to the decision of this second appeal. 6. It consequence, the review application is allowed and the Board's Judgment dated November 13, 1975 is hereby set aside. The second appeal shall be heard and decided by the Member haying Jurisdiction.