JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member - Both these second appeals are filed by Mauji Lal challenging the judgment and decree dated June 14, 1974 passed by Addl. Commissioner Allahabad by which he remanded the case for re-trial to the trial court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one case was filed by Ram Charan and Ram Bharose Singh with the allegations that the land in suit belonged to Smt. Kosallia and, therefore, was declared to be a tenure-holder during the Consolidation operations and they had purchased the property from her by means of a sale deed dated December 24, 1963 and hance they be declared to be the Bhumidhars of the land in suit. It was contested by Mauji Lal on the ground that the plaintiffs had never been in possession and that there was a litigation in Consolidation courts with respect to the property of the village Mubarakpatti and it was held that Smt. Kaushilya Had re-married and, therefore, the sale deed confers no title to the present plaintiffs. Mauji Lal filed a suit for declaration of his status in similar allegations which was contested by Ram Charan and Ram Bharose Singh on similar grounds as narrated above. The learned lower court consolidated the two suits and decreed the suit of Mauji Lal and dismissed the suit of Ram Charan and Ram Bharose Singh against this order two appeals No. 426 and 427 of 1972 were filed by Ram Charan and Ram Bharose Singh which are allowed by Addl. Commissioner Allahabad on June 14, 1974 with the direction that two issued on the point whether the order of the D.D.C. Unnao dated July 6, 1965 amount to dismissing of the appeal and whether Smt. Kaushalia acquire title in her own rights by estoppel and acquiescence against this order present tow second appeals are filed by Mauji Lal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant argued thar the entire evidence was before the Commissioner and no further evidence was to be recorded by the trial court who gave findings the position also and as such Commissioner should have decided the case himself finally instead of remand it. The learned counsel for the respondent justify the order of the Addl. Commissioner and argued that he passed the correct order. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent justify the order of the Addl. Commissioner and argued that he passed the correct order. 4. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the parties. An entire evidence including the evidence of possession is on record. Only legal facts of the evidence was to be considered under order 41 Rule 24 C.P.C. It is provided that where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may after resettling the issues, if necessary finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon same ground other than that on which the Appellate Court Proceeds. This rule is fully applied in the present case. Addl. Commissioner himself should have decided all these points instead of remanded the case. The result in that both the present second appeals are allowed and order passed by the Addl. Commissioner dated June 14, 1976 is set aside. The Addl. Commissioner is directed to decide both these appeals himself on merit at an early date. Party shall bear their own costs.