JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a second appeal against the judgment dated September 26, 1984 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dated September 29, 1983. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No one is present from the opposite side. 3. The fact of the case and that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 was filed by Gaya Prasad and Sant Ram against Anganuwa and others for declaration of Bhumidhari rights. 4. Written statement was filed and issued were framed. After that the trial court has dismisses the suit. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner by a sketchy order allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated September 29, 1983. 6. Without entering into the merits of the case on the fact of the judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner does not appear to be a judgment in law. The appellate court while disagreeing with the findings of the trial court, give reasons for not accepting the same and shall also determine the points, give reasons and then decide the same as provided under Order 41, rule 31 of the C.P.C. which is as follows:- Order 41. Rule 31: "The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state- (a) The points for determination; (b) The decision thereon; (c) The reasons for the decisions; and (d) Where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled;" 7. Hence no this ground, I set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner dated September 26, 1984 and remanded the case to the learned Additional Commissioner for deciding it in accordance with law and on the basis of the observations made above.