JUDGMENT R.S. Varma, M. - This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and order dated 8-5-1981 passed by Sri G. Bahadur, Additional Commissioner, Allahabad. The learned Additional Commissioner was dealing with an appeal in a case under section 229-B Z.A. and L.R. Act which had been filed by Mahadeo and Mahabir against Raj Narain and others. The learned trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs but the learned Additional Commissioner set aside the judgment of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit. 2. Mahadeo and Mahabir are sons of Budhoo. It was the case of the plaintiff the Budhoo and his brother Baijnath were co-bhumidhars of the land in suit, that Baijnath had no son, that Baijnath on 12-12-1972 executed a registered will in in favour of Budhoo, at after the the death of Baijnath his interest was inherited by Budhoo according to the natural law of succession as well as due to the will, that the name of Budhoo was alone was recorded in the village papers after the death of Baijnath but some how his name of defendant No. 2 Ram Bahadur was mutated in his place, that taking advantage of this entry Ram Bahadur executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1 Raj Narain whose name was mutated in the revenue paper and thus the plaintiff had to file a suit for declaration. 3. Ram Bahadur defendant No. 2, claimed that he is son of Baijnath, that he resided in his Nanihal along with his mother, that Baijnath was an old person of about 80 years and was near his death when taking advantage of the absence of Ram Bahadur, defendant No. 2, and plaintiff's father Budhoo got a fictitious will deed executed by Baijnath in his favour, that Budhoo applied for mutation of his name on the basis of the will deed and Ram Bahadur preferred an objection in the mutation court but there was a compromise between him and Budhoo outside the court and so he left pairivy of that case but Budhoo played a fraud on him by going to the court by getting his name mutated on the basis of the will, that then Ram Bahadur got knowledge of this act of Budhoo he collected a Panchayat in which Budhoo said that Baijnath owned him Rs. 5000 and if Ram Bahadur would pay him that amount he will execute a sale-deed in favour of Ram Bahadur and thus relinquished all his rights in the disputed plots that Ram Bahadur defendant No. 2 paid the said amount and Budhoo accordingly executed a sale-deed in his favour and thus Ram Bahadur became bhumidhar of disputed plots and he in his turn sold it to Raj Narain defendant No. 1. 4. Raj Narain defendant No. 1 had also contested the case and has taken the same pleas which were taken by Ram Bahadur defendant No. 2. 5. Several issues were framed in the case. Some important questions are as follows : Firstly whether Baijnath executed a will deed in favour of Budhoo ? Secondly whether Ram Bahadur is the son of Baijnath ? Thirdly whether Budhoo executed a sale-deed of the disputed plot in favour of Ram Bahadur ? All these important questions were decided in favour of Ram Bahadur defendant No. 2 and so the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner in appeal gave a finding effect that Ram Bahadur was not the son of Baijnath and that Baijnath had really executed a will deed in favour of Budhoo and that Budhoo was thus the sole bhumidhar of the land in suit and on his death the plaintiffs inherited the land in suit. The learned Additional Commissioner did not give any finding on the point whether Budhoo had executed a sale deed of the land in suit in favour of Ram Bahadur. I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below and have also heard the parties in great detail. I am in more agreement with the findings given by the learned trial court than with the findings given by the learned Additional Commissioner on the point of paternity of Ram Bahadur and also on the point of execution of the will. But the evidence on the record in respect of these two questions is such that two opinions can be taken about these two questions and hence if the learned first appellate court took a particular view on the evidence on record it cannot be said that the findings of the learned first appellate court on these two points is perverse or is so wrong that interference can be made in second appeal. It is established law that even a wrong finding of fact given by the first appellate court cannot be interfered in second appeal unless that finding is perverse. Such a criticism cannot be made against the findings given by the learned first appellate court, on these two points and hence in second appeal it would not be proper to make any interference. 7. But findings given by the learned first appellate court on these two points is not alone sufficient to decide the case. The further point of Budhoo having executed a sale-deed of the property in dispute in favour of Ram Bahadur remains material because if Budhoo was the sole bhumidhar of land in suit he had every right to sell his property in favour of Ram Bahadur defendant No. 2. The learned trial court had held that Budhoo had executed a sale-deed of the disputed plots in favour of Ram Bahadur. This finding of fact given by the learned trial court was not reversed by the learned first appellate court. Not only that the learned Additional Commissioner did not give any finding on this material point. So this is a case in which the learned first appellate court has neither reversed the finding given by the learned trial court on a material question of fact nor has given its own finding on this material point. In other words there is no finding of the learned first appellate court on this material point and so the 2nd appellate court will have to see whether the finding given by the learned trial court on this point is correct or not. On this ground the second appellate court will have to interfere with the judgment of the learned first appellate to court because that court has failed to give any finding on a very material issue. 8. Before proceeding further I may state that I am in full agreement with the findings given by the trial court that Budhoo had executed a sale-deed of the land in suit in favour of Ram Bahadur. That sale-deed is Exb-kha 3 and has been proved by D.W. 4 Sangam Lal. Nothing material was elicited in this cross-examination. 8. Before proceeding further I may state that I am in full agreement with the findings given by the trial court that Budhoo had executed a sale-deed of the land in suit in favour of Ram Bahadur. That sale-deed is Exb-kha 3 and has been proved by D.W. 4 Sangam Lal. Nothing material was elicited in this cross-examination. This sale-deed has also been proved by the defendant No. 2 Ram Bahadur who was examined in this case an D.W. 2 P.W. 8 Sri Phool Chand Yadava, Advocate appeared from the side of the plaintiffs and he is also some how related to the plaintiffs and had also acted as their counsel in the mutation case. He is absolutely an independent and trustworthy witness. He had stated on oath that Budhoo had executed a sale-deed in favour of Ram Bahadur and that he (Sri Phool Chand Yadava Advocate) himself had written that sale-deed. The sale-deed Exb-kha-3 show that it had been drafted by Sri Phool Chand Yadava Advocate. Thus, from the evidence of the defendants as well as from the evidence of Sri Phool Chand Yadava Advocate P.W. 3 it has been conclusively proved that Budhoo, father of the plaintiffs, had executed a sale-deed of the land in suit favour of Ram Bahadur. The result was that Budhoo thereafter lost all his title and interest in the land in suit and that title and interest went to defendant No. 2 Ram Bahadur whose name was also mutated in place of Budhoo. 9. At this stage we may keep in mind what the learned Additional Commissioner said regarding this important issue. At page 3 he observed that only point for consideration in this case is whether the sale-deed executed by Ram Bahadur in favour of Raj Narain is valid and operative. Thereafter he dealt with other points while dealing with the paternity of Ram Bahadur the learned Additional Commissioner, in that context, referred to the sale-deed executed by Budhoo in favour Ram Bahadur but he did not go further to say whether that sale-deed had been proved or not or whether that sale-deed was material or not. In whole of his judgment the learned Additional Commissioner never adverted to the point whether Budhoo had ever executed a sale-deed in favour of Ram Bahadur. In whole of his judgment the learned Additional Commissioner never adverted to the point whether Budhoo had ever executed a sale-deed in favour of Ram Bahadur. We thus see that the learned Additional perhaps deliberately avoided to discuss this question and this was one of the three most important question which had arisen in the case. Granting that the Bahadur was not the son of Baijnath and further granting that Baijnath had executed a will deed in favour of Budhoo the position of law was that Budhoo had a transferable right in the land in suit. It was from the very beginning mentioned in the case that Ram Bahadur had a sale-deed in his favour executed by Budhoo and that on the basis of that sale-deed Ram Bahadur's name was mutated in the revenue records. The plaintiffs said that Budhoo had not really executed any sale-deed in favour of Ram Bahadur but their own witness P.W. 3 Sri Phool Chand Yadava Advocate stated on oath that Budhoo has executed a sale-deed in favour of Ram Bahadur and that he himself had drafted that sale-deed. That sale-deed Exb-kha-3 has been further proved, according to law, by D.W. 2 Ram Bahadur and D.W. 4 Sangam Lal. If Budhoo executed a sale-deed in favour of Ram Bhadur it is apparent that Budhoo lost all his rights in the land in suit by the said transfer and Ram Bahadur got those rights after the sale-deed. The learned Additional Commissioner conveniently avoided all this point and the stranger fact is that he had not have even guts to set aside the finding of fact given by the learned trial court on this point. 10. I have already mentioned above that Budhoo was the bhumidhar of the land in suit and that he executed a sale-deed in favour of Ram Bahadur. Because of that transfer Ram Bahadur became the bhumidhar of the land in suit and his name was rightly mutated in place of Budhoo and so Ram Bahadur being the bhumidhar of the land in suit after the said transfer, was competent to transfer it to the defendant No. 1 Raj Narain. Because of that transfer Ram Bahadur became the bhumidhar of the land in suit and his name was rightly mutated in place of Budhoo and so Ram Bahadur being the bhumidhar of the land in suit after the said transfer, was competent to transfer it to the defendant No. 1 Raj Narain. Needless to say that if Budhoo lost his bhumidhar rights in the land in suit by said transfer his sons, the plaintiffs, could not inherit any rights in the land in suit because their father Budhoo had, after had, after the sale-deed, no subsisting rights in disputed plots. The result is that the plaintiff's suit for declaration was bound to fail and it had been rightly dismissed by the learned trial court. Once again it may be said that the learned Additional Commissioner did not give any finding regarding execution of sale-deed by Budhoo in favour of Ram Bahadur and thus he has omitted to discuss material evidence on the record on a very material question. The judgment and order of the learned Additional Commissioner cannot be sustained and it must be interfered with. 11. I, therefore, allow this second appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 8-5-1981 passed by Sri G. Bahadur, Additional Commissioner and maintain the judgment given by the learned trial court which had dismissed the plaintiff's suit.