JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal filed against the judgment of Additional Commissioner dated April 19, 1978. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. The suit was filed by Babu Nandan (now his heirs Ram Deo etc.) under Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as heirs of Chhakku. It was alleged that the mortgage executed by Smt. Puniya daughter of Chhakku has also been redeemed hence they acquired property in dispute as heir. Defendants 1 to 5 (Lallan, Jiwan, Basantu, Raghu and Ram Nath) filed written statement on January 15, 1972 inter alia alleging that the property was acquired by their ancestors Jaggu and Jagrup. They were hereditary tenants and there was no mortgage and they are the sole tenure-holders of the land in suit. 4. The Assistant Collector 1st Class by his judgment dated January 19, 1976 dismissed the suit with costs. Against this order an appeal was preferred and Additional Collector by his judgment dated April 19, 1978 has dismissed the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant on the very out set has urged that the judgment of the Additional Commissioner is no judgment in the eye of law. It is not a speaking judgment. In it, it has only been stated in the last but one paragraph (previously narrating the facts of the case and the arguments advanced by the parties) that he heard both the parties and had seen the record. In his view there is no error in the law in the judgment of the lower court. Respondent was never an Asami and respondent is neither an Asami nor he is liable to be ejected. He did not find any force in the appeal, hence he rejected the appeal.' Thus the learned counsel stated that no reason has been given by him for dismissing the appeal. He has not applied his mind in delivering the judgment. He has relied on the ruling Ramdeo v. Babulal 1981 R.D. 88. In this case it was held by my learned brother that the judgment cannot be sustained because the first appellate court has not considered the evidence and dismissed the appeal. 6. He has not applied his mind in delivering the judgment. He has relied on the ruling Ramdeo v. Babulal 1981 R.D. 88. In this case it was held by my learned brother that the judgment cannot be sustained because the first appellate court has not considered the evidence and dismissed the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in this case the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, hence there was no need to give any reason for the appellate court. No doubt there is a difference in giving reason in between the trial Court and the appellate court where it affirms or upholds the order of the trial court but this does not mean that the trial court is not to apply its mind while passing its judgment. Hence where the appellate court affirms the judgment of the trial court court, it must express the general agreement with reasons given by the trial court or refer to reasons given by the trial court or give outline of the process of reasoning by which it finds itself in agreement with the inferior authority. Then it will show that he has applied his mind and has come to some conclusion but where there is no such explicit reference of reasons of outline of the process of reasoning the judgment is not a judgment in the eye of law. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girjanandini Devi and others v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary A.I.R. 1967 (S.C.) 1124 at para 12 held that 'Expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice. 'But in the present case there is even no expression of general agreement in the judgment of Additional Commissioner dated April 19, 1978. The view taken by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Haji Manzoor Ahmad v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1970 Alld. 467 is that ....(2)....(b) where the order of the inferior authority sets out the reason and (i) where the superior authority finds the reasons of the interior authority acceptable to it, need not specify the reasons in its order but may merely refer to the reasons given by the inferior authority or given an outline of the process of reasoning by which it finds itself in agreement with the inferior authority....'. 8. 8. This view was affirmed by a a larger Bench in Ram Murti Saran v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1971 Alld. 54 (F.B), by a Full Bench in Prem Prakash Virmani v. State Government A.I.R. 1971 Alld. 82 as well as by another Full Bench in Nanha v. D.D.C. A.I.R. 1976 Alld. 91 (F.B.). 9. From the decisions given by the courts as mentioned above it is clear that the appellate court, if affirms finding of the trial court it must refer to the reasons given by the inferior authority or give outline of the process of reasoning by which it finds itself in agreement with inferior authority. There must be expression of general agreement with reasons given by the trial court. In the judgment of Additional Commissioner dated April 19, 1978 there is no such expression of general agreement with reasons and there is no reference to the reasons given by the inferior authority or an outline of the process of the reasoning by which it finds itself in agreement with the inferior authority. 10. I, therefore, hold that the judgment of the Additional Commissioner is no judgment in the eye of law and he has not properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. I, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Additional Commissioner dated April 19, 1978 and remand the case to the court of Additional Commissioner for deciding it on the basis of observations made above and in accordance with law.