JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated April 24, 1980 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, allowing the first appeal and after setting aside the judgment and decree by the learned trial court, declaring the plaintiff co-sharer to the extent of half in the area of two plot Number 133 he held the plaintiff tenant of area .927 acre and Abdul Ghani as tenant of the balance area 2.06 acres. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant only and have also perused the record. None appeared for the respondent in spite of due notice. 3. The suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act related to plot number 133 area 3.33 acres. The plaintiff Ram Jiayee claimed to be the sole Sirdar of this plot and that the defendant Sukhram had got his name recorded wrongly. The defendant Sukhram claimed to have matured his rights as also found during Chakbandi proceedings and sold the plot to Abdul Gani defendant. Admittedly, the land belonged to Baijnath Originally who died issueless, Ramkala lived with Baijnath as his wife and her daughter Ramjiyaee not being the daughter of Baijnath was recorded in consolidation proceedings on 1.09 acres area of plot number 140 by on plot number 133 area 3.33 acres, the name of Sukhram was recorded. The learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff respondent holding that Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act barred the suit. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal without upsetting the finding of the learned trial court regarding bar under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the first appellate court has reversed the decree without meeting the points decided by the learned trial court and in support has cited rulings reported in AIR 1972 Orissa 228 and AIR 1975 Patna 194. This I find to be a fact because the learned Additional Commissioner has not considered the question of bar under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act nor has reversed it. This I find to be a fact because the learned Additional Commissioner has not considered the question of bar under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act nor has reversed it. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the learned Additional Commissioner added both the plots and divided into half, thus, modifying both the orders of the consolidation court for plot number 140 and the order of the learned trail court regarding plot number 133 and that he had no jurisdiction to consider and give any decision about plot number which was not in the suit, that there was no case of co-tenancy set up by the plaintiff who claimed to be the sole Sirdar and so a third case could not be carved out by the learned first appellate court itself, in support he cited a ruling reported in 1971 R.D. 460. On this point, also I agree with the learned counsel that the learned first appellate court had no jurisdiction to give any finding and decision regarding plot number 140 and thereby could not have his finding in respect of plot number 133 on the supposed correct decision about plot number 140. It is also true that it was not the business of the learned Additional Commissioner to carve out himself a third case not pleaded by either of the two parties. 5. The learned counsel further argued that the consolidation court had not found or recognised co-tenancy in any plot between the two parties, Mst. Ramjiyaee and sukhram. This appears to be a fact. 6. No doubt, the learned Additional Commissioner did not have a clear notion about the application of bar under section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Any claims of any party different than and not based on the adjudication by the consolidation court is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Such claim which could or ought to have been established before the consolidation court and are different than and not based on the decision of the consolidation court are also barred. While the learned Addl. Commissioner based his consideration on the Khatauni 1366-68F containing entry of the order of CO he disregarded the fact that Chakbandi proceedings had continued till 1371F as seen from C.H-40 and CH-45. While the learned Addl. Commissioner based his consideration on the Khatauni 1366-68F containing entry of the order of CO he disregarded the fact that Chakbandi proceedings had continued till 1371F as seen from C.H-40 and CH-45. Last adjudication by the consolidation court could be seen in C.H.-45 and not in Khatauni 1366-1368F and this decision of the consolidation court acted as a bar against any claim of Ramjiyaee. Since the name of Sukhram was already there is CH-45, the learned Additional Commissioner had no justification for a partial consideration. 7. I also find that the consideration by the learned Additional Commissioner is rather brief and not to the point. He had to give a finding relating to the issue on bar under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act first. Since the plaintiffs' claim was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. No Consideration of Ramjiyaee and Sukhram being co-sharers could be possible, no consideration of the claim of Ramjiyaee as sole Sirdar of plot number 133 was possible and the eccentric decision of the plot number 133 by the learned Additional Commissioner was not called for. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed with costs, the judgment and decree by the learned Additional Commissioner dated April 24, 1980 is set aside and the judgment and decree by the learned trial court is confirmed.