JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 8-2-1972 allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondents Ram Nath and Shyam Das preferred against the decision of the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, dated 19-9-1967. 2. The plaintiff-respondents 4 and 5 filed a suit under Section 209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for dispossession of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner bad been given the land in dispute for one year on Sajha, which was subsequently terminated at the end of 1363 Fasli. The plaintiffs further alleged that after the termination of the Sajha, they came in possession, but were forcibly dispossessed by the defendant-petitioner in 1364 Fasli, and as the petitioner refused to vacate, the suit for his dispossession under Section 209 had to be filed 3. The suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he was not a Sajhi of respondents 4 and 5, and that he was in possession over the land in dispute since long, and on account of independent cultivatory possession, he had acquired the right of Sirdar, which subsequently matured as that of a Bhumidhar. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as nine issues. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were the bhumidhars of the land in dispute and were in possession till 1363 Fasli. The trial court further found that the defendant-petitioner had not acquired any right by virtue of cultivatory possession. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, reversed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Against that judgment, the respondents 4 and 5 went up in appeal to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue took the view contrary to that of the Additional Commissioner and, after having reversed the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, upheld that of trial court. Hence this Writ. 5. Against that judgment, the respondents 4 and 5 went up in appeal to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue took the view contrary to that of the Additional Commissioner and, after having reversed the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, upheld that of trial court. Hence this Writ. 5. The main contention of the petitioners learned counsel was that under Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the Board of Revenue did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact and as by the impugned judgment the Board has interfered in a second appeal, which was concluded by findings of fact arrived at by the Additional Commissioner, the judgment of the Board of Revenue was vitiated in law and liable to be quashed. 6. It is undeniable that the power under Section 331 being analogous to that of Section 110 of the Code of Civil procedure, the Board could interfere only when there was an error of law or that the court below had acted illegally in adopting the procedure in deciding the appeal before it. The Board of Revenue had no power to reverse the judgment of the Additional Commissions by entering upon the questions, of fact and recording of finding different from that which had teen given by the Additional Commissioner. 7. In the instant case, It, however, appears that the Board of Revenue has given some reasons for taking the view in support of Respondents 4 and 5, which could be held to be legally sound, but as the Board of Revenue has not referred to the entire oral evidence of the parties, which was material to decide the question of possession of the defendant-petitioner, the judgment of the Board of Revenue could not be upheld. The Board of Revenue appears in this case to have interfered with the findings of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner that the possession of the defendant-petitioner was since before 1363 Fasli, and that the plaintiff-respondents nos. 4 and 5 had failed to establish that his possession started by virtue of Sajha which was given by them. Learned counsel for Respondents nos. 4 and 5 emphasised on relationship of the defendant-petitioner with respondents 4 and 5 for arguing that possession of the petitioner could not be independent and, if at all, that possession could be treated to be that of respondents 4 and 5. Learned counsel for Respondents nos. 4 and 5 emphasised on relationship of the defendant-petitioner with respondents 4 and 5 for arguing that possession of the petitioner could not be independent and, if at all, that possession could be treated to be that of respondents 4 and 5. This was controverted by the petitioners learned counsel. However, I do not consider it appropriate to give any findings on this controversy. What appears to me is this that the judgment of the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside, as also that of the Additional Commissioner who did not decide the controversy before him. The Additional Commissioner laid due emphasis on the two receipts filed by the petitioner. In these two receipts, the petitioner is alleged to have purchased seeds and paid price for the same. Unless the Additional Commissioner found them connected with the land in dispute he could not hold that the defendant-petitioner was in cultivatory possession over the land in his independent right. That apart, reliance placed on Ext. D2 by the Additional Commissioner was without reference to the background in which that letter was written. 8. Taking all the aspects of the matter, referred to above, it will be in the interest of justice that the judgments of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner are set aside and the Additional Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, and the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 8-2-1972, and that of the Additional Commissioner Varanasi Division, Varanasi, dated 19-9-1968 are quashed. The Additional Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The petitioner will be entitled to withdraw the money which was deposited by him in the court below in pursuance of the stay order passed by this Court. No order as to Courts.