JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member. - This second appeal has been filed under Section 331 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 against the judgment and decree dated 8-2-84 passed by the additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Mohan Lal filed a suit against Gyasi and others under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act I of 1951 in respect of plot no. 175, area 1-27 Dec. situate at village Jatipura on 17-1-75. The suit was contested by Gyasi and others and also Gaon Sabha. The suit was decreed on 19-4-83. An appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who allowed the appeal on 8-2-84. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court had recorded a clear finding that Smt. Triveni who was admittedly the bhumidhar of the land in dispute, had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, that the sale deed had been duly proved and consequently the plaintiff became bhumidhar of the land in suit, that the defendant-respondents could not get any rights in the land, that the lower appellate court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in not deciding all the issues which were involved in the case and which were decided by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, and that the lower appellate court bad relied upon the orders passed in mutation proceedings and on that basis allowed the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the sale deed was forged one, that there was no evidence regarding the execution of the sale deed, and that the plaintiff-appellant had no right or title in the land in suit. 5. The trial court framed fourteen issues in the instant suit. Issue no. 3 related to the execution of the sale deed. After appraisal of evidence the trial court held that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was valid and on that basis it held that the plaintiff was bhumidhar of the land in suit. The learned Additional Commissioner has not at all given his reasons for not agreeing with this finding arrived at by the trial court in this respect. The learned Additional Commissioner has based his decision on the order passed in mutation proceedings. The learned Additional Commissioner has not at all given his reasons for not agreeing with this finding arrived at by the trial court in this respect. The learned Additional Commissioner has based his decision on the order passed in mutation proceedings. I find that the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is not correct. In a dissenting judgment a heavy duty is cast upon the appellate court to examine the evidence in detail and to record findings in respect of its disagreement. In the instant case, the learned Additional Commissioner has not at all cared to look into the matter in detail and has passed orders on the basis of orders passed in mutation proceedings. There was a sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and so long as the sale deed is valid, no rights could accrue to any body except to the plaintiff-appellant. I find nothing on the record of the case which disproves the execution of the sale deed. The decision given in mutation proceedings is not at all binding on a regular proceeding. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the order of the learned lower appellate court is set aside, and the matter is sent back to it for being examined in the light of the observations made above.