JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioner now represented by his heirs had challenged the judgment of the second appellate Court dated 6-8-1976. 2. It is not necessary to give the facts involved in the present case as they are evident from the bare perusal of the impugned judgment. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before me is that the second appellate Court has acted illegally and erroneously in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court. 3. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties. 4. In my opinion the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has force. The bare perusal of the judgments of the appellate Court indicated that the second appellate Court has reappraised the facts and circumstances in the case and it has come to a contrary finding to the finding recorded by the first appellate Court. The only question involved in the case was whether the petitioner was in possession over the disputed laud during earlier litigation and whether the defendant continued in possession over the disputed land after the decree in favour of the plaintiff petitioner. On both the questions the first appellate court has recorded the finding of fact which cannot be characterised as perverse or without any basis in evidence in the circumstances of the present case. 5. It is noteworthy that the second appellate Court has made the following observation: - ".......The learned Additional Commissioner was greatly influenced by the fact that Niaz Mohammads possession is continuously recorded in the Khasra from 1373 Fasli. But he failed to take into consideration the important fact that the expunction of the name of Smt. Ruqiya Begum from column no. 5 of the Khasra in 1373 Fasli by the Lekhpal was unauthorised and not backed by any order of superior authority. As Smt. Ruqia Begum was in possession of the land in dispute from 1365 Fasil it was necessary for the respondent to have the decree passed in his favour and obtain possession. As the decree was not put into execution the possession of Smt. Ruqiya Begum was not disturbed. In these circumstances, she acquired rights of a sirdar under section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act." 6. As the decree was not put into execution the possession of Smt. Ruqiya Begum was not disturbed. In these circumstances, she acquired rights of a sirdar under section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act." 6. The second appellate Court has not appreciated the judgment of the Trial Court in the earlier litigation wherein he findings were somewhat contradictory and the first appellate Court in the present litigation after appraising the evidence and circumstances of the case came to a finding of fact that the plaintiff petitioner was in possession from 1373. Fasli which would lead to an inference that the plaintiff petitioner got possession from the defendant of the earlier, litigation in year 1373 Fasil, which would correspond to the time after passing the decree in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and within one year of the time of the execution of the decree for possession in the earlier litigation. Since the second appellate Court has not appreciated the circumstances involved in the present case and has interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court without specifically pointing out the illegality or irregularity committed by the first appellate Court contemplated by the provisions of section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms, Act, its judgment suffers from patent error of law, and deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the second appellate Court is hereby quashed and the second appellate Court is directed to decide the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law. As none has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties, there would be no order as to costs.