JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the judgment and decree of the learned Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 11-2-1986 in appeal no. 54 of 1984 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28-5-1984 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class, Jaunpur in a suit no. 94/305 under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in respect of land situated in village Pandepur, Pergana Kariyat Dost, Jaunpur. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the respondent Sri Udairaj and Balwant brought a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act alleging that they have been continuing in possession ever the disputed land prior to the zamindari abolition and were in possession on 1-7-1952 also, hence they have become bhumidhars. The defendants have no concern with the land but the entries are recorded in their favour which are liable to be expunged. It was also alleged that defendant no. 3 Bhudan Sainiti has settled the land with defendant no. 4 Shishu Shiksha Sadan but this transaction is fictitious because i.e. possession was delivered to defendant no. 4 The plaintiff, therefore claimed to be declared sole bhumidhar of the land. State and Gaon Sabha did not contest the suit but defendant no. 3 Bhudan Samiti and defendant no. 4 Shishu Shiksha Sadan filed written statement but later Shishu Shiksha Sadan filed a compromise on the basis of which the suit was decreed on 7-6-76. On 19-3-1980 the Gaon Sabha applied for restoration of the suit which was allowed and the decree dated 7-6-1976 was set aside. Thereafter the appellants Ramdeo and Phool Nath submitted an application for impleadment which was also allowed. They came up with the case that the land belongs to the Gaon Sabha and they have planted trees on the land and that such trees belong to them. The suit was ultimately decreed by the trial court on 28-5-1984 and the appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed on the ground that the appellant should seek the declaration about his trees in the Civil Court because they claimed rights on the trees and not on the land. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the land belongs to Bhudan Samiti as is evident from the khatauni 1381 to 1383 fasli, hence the defendant no. 4 Shishu Siksha Sadan was not competent to enter into any compromise with the plaintiff or to take any money from them because its rights were akin to that of an asami or a licensee and it had no right to admit the title of the plaintiff. It was, therefore, argued that the compromise arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant no. 4 is unlawful and could not be accepted by the trial court, it was also argued that the plaintiff have miserably failed in proving their possession in any year before the zamindari abolition, hence they could not acquire any right over the land. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appeal liable to be dismissed because the appellant do not claim any title on the land and they merely claimed possession on the trees, hence they could seek the relief in the Civil Court and this court cannot rent relief. 6. It is proved from the contents of para 1 of the compromise which was filed and verified on 7-6-1976 that the land belongs to Bhudan Samiti. By virtue of the terms of this document, the plaintiffs have themselves admitted the title of the Bhumi Prabandhan Samit. Consequently they cannot be permitted to say that they have been continuing in possession from prior to the zamindari abolition. In the khatauni mentioned aforesaid also it is Bhudan Samiti and not the plaintiffs which is recorded as the tenure-holder. In these circumstances the plaintiffs cannot be said to have been ever in possession either prior to or subsequent to the zamindari abolition. The plaintiff seems to have purchased this land from the defendant, no. 4 in lieu of Rs. 5,500/-. but no regular sale deed had been obtained, hence by virtue of this compromise no rights cart be deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiffs Further defendant no. The plaintiff seems to have purchased this land from the defendant, no. 4 in lieu of Rs. 5,500/-. but no regular sale deed had been obtained, hence by virtue of this compromise no rights cart be deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiffs Further defendant no. 4 Shishu Shiksha Sadan being a licensee or even a sirdar of the Bhudan Samiti under Section 14 of U.P. Act No. X of 1953 had only non-transferable rights, hence it could not transfer the land in favour of the plaintiff even on payment of money and it could not even execute a valid sale deed in their favour. In such circumstances the compromise filed by plaintiff and defendant no. 4 was unworthy of being accepted and could not be the basis for decreeing the suit. The trial court was, therefore, utterly wrong in decreeing the suit on the basis of this compromise. The plaintiffs even if held to be in possession on account of the transfer made by the defendant no. , cannot he held to be a bhumidhar of the land and the possession would be that of trespassers. Consequently no right could accrue to them and their suit was bound to be dismissed. It is immaterial whether the appellants could prove their title on the trees or not or whether this court can gram any relief to them or not however it is pertinent that the plaintiffs should have proved their case and should have stood on their own legs in which they have miserably failed. In such circumstances, the suit should have been dismissed and the appeal should have been allowed but it was also wrongly dismissed. The learned Additional Commissioner failed to appreciate the title of the Bhudan Samiti over the land. Considering all the aspect of the case the appeal is allowed and the judgments and decree passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside and the suit is dismissed.