JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision filed against the judgment of Additional Commissioner dated 24-9-1981. 2. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records. 3. The order has been passed by the lower court on a restoration application. It appears that on the wrong assumption of facts order was passed, hence before discussing the judgments of the lower courts I narrate the facts of the case as following. 4. The suit was filed on 19-2-1957 by Kamlapati Tewari father of Hardeo against Deonandan alone under section 22-C with a prayer that ;g fd fMxzh bLrdjkfj;k crtcht bl voj ds fd eqnkysg ls vkjkts uEcjh tSy ls dksbZ okLrk ljksdkj ugha gS vkSj u mldk dCtk gS eqnkysg uoEcj dk uke xyr rkSj ij ntZ gS og d eqn~nbZ f[kykQ eqnkysg lkfnj QjekbZ tk;sA Deo Nandan filed written statement on 19-2-1957 admitting that he has no claim over the land in suit. The admission is within three sentences. fuosnu gS fd vkjkft;kr eqn~nkfc;k ls gels dksbZ okLrk ljksdkj ugha gSA ge bldk :i;k ik x;s gSA gekjk uke [kkfjt fd;k tk;sA After that an order was passed by the trial court on 21.2.57 it is as follow :- "The defendant admits plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff's suit in respect of land in suit is decreed. Costs easy." 5. Now the application has been filed on 22-9-1973 by Mahendra and jag Narain for setting aside the order dated 21-2-1957. It is alleged that fraud has been committed and the order should be set aside and the suit may be decided after impleading Mahendra and Jag Narain. This application was allowed by the trial court on 25-7-1975. While deciding this application the trial court has stated at Para 4 that the land in suit was of Aditya Narain Tewari and Kamlapati Tewari ; and Rajendra Tewari father of present applicants Mahendra and Jag Narain was son of Aditya Narain Tewari and then again it was alleged that Rajendra Tewari was a necessary party and it was a suit u/s 229-B of the Act in which (sic) State Government and Gaon Sabha should have been made party and it was not done so, hence it was a fraud on the court and that decree based on admission was set aside. The appellant court by its judgment dated 24-9-1981 confirmed the order of the trial court and accepted reasoning given by the trial court. The appellant court by its judgment dated 24-9-1981 confirmed the order of the trial court and accepted reasoning given by the trial court. It has held that a fraud was committed and it was no judgement, hence it should be set aside. 6. From the aforesaid judgments it is clear that the case has not been approached from the proper angle, here the question of fraud or co-tenancy or the filing of the suit u/s 229-B does not arise at all. It was a suit u/s 229-C simpliciter and 229-C.U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is as follows :- "229-C. Suit for declaration of rights of a person claiming to be an asami :-A gaon sabha or a bhumidhar (***) of any land may sue any person claiming to be an asami of such land for a declaration of the rights of such person. Hence only a declaration is sought under such suit in respect of defendant and a negative admission was made by the defendant. Hence order was passed accordingly by the trial court. There is no declaration of any right of the plaintiff that he was a sirdar or not. Hence the apprehension of the learned counsel for the opposite party that they will be debarred to challenge the right of plaintiff Hardeo (as the suit was filed by his father Kamlapati Tewari) is unfounded. There was no decision on the declaration of the right of the plaintiff, hence it cannot be said, in any way, that the applicants rights, if any, will be prejudiced. Moreover, Mahendra and Jag Narain are not parties in the suit, no declaration has been done against them and at the same time no declaration has been made in favour of the plaintiff-Kamlapati (or his son Hardeo). Mahendra Tewari and Jag Narain are at liberty to get their rights declared under the proper provisions of law before the proper court. 7. The distinction between two sections 229-B and 229-C is that in the suit u/s 229-B the plaintiff claims for a declaration of his right against the defendant that means the rights of the plaintiffs are declared. Whereas in a suit u/s 229-C the plaintiff files a suit for a declaration of the right of defendant (not for a declaration of plaintiffs rights). Whereas in a suit u/s 229-C the plaintiff files a suit for a declaration of the right of defendant (not for a declaration of plaintiffs rights). In other words the plaintiffs suit is not for the declaration of his own rights but for the declaration of Adhivasi or asami rights (later on the asami rights only) of the defendant. The suit had been filed by one man and the declaration is sought for another man's right. Hence in other words it can be said that it is a kind of negative, declaration whether defendant is asami or not. In the present suit no relief was claimed for declaration that the plaintiff is sirdar or bhumidhar and there is no admission to that effect. The ruling Surendra Narain v. D.D.C., 1973 R.D. page 328 is based on different facts. Therein the compromise, it was stated that the plaintiffs were the bhumidhars while the defendant had no interest in the plots that means there was indirectly the declaration of bhumidhari or sirdari rights of the plaintiff and it cannot be done in a suit u/s 229-C. 8. Moreover the delay in filing the application dated 22-9-83 has not been properly explained. The applicants are neither a party nor they can be said to be aggrieved persons. The rights have not been effected in any way and they are not debarred from filing a fresh suit for declaration of their own rights. Hence in my opinion it is not a case of remand. If it is remanded in the name of justice gross injustice may be done to the parties. Hence there is no justification for keeping alive the restoration application which is of no effect. 9. Hence in my opinion both the courts below have taken the decision on the wrong assumption and hence on wrong facts. They have not properly exercised their jurisdiction vested in them. The judgments of the courts below are based on irrelevant considerations and have got no basis. 10. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the judgment dated 24-9-1981 of Additional Commissioner and judgment of trial court dated 25-2-1975 and the application for restoration is hereby rejected. Costs easy.