JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is an appeal under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and Land Reforms Act against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated July 17, 1981 allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated March 19, 1979 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class, Bulandhahahar. 2. The fact of this case briefly are stated as follows. The plaintiffs-appellant brought a suit under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act alleging that he is Bhumidhar of plot No. 229 area 12 Biswas, 230 area 17 Biswas, 272 area 11 Biswas. He had two other plots also no. 237/2 area 3 Biswas, 237/3, area 1 Bigha 17 Biswas, also in his tenure but the Pradhan cunningly obtained his surrender in resect of these two plots namely 237/2 and 237/3 which were ordered to be recorded as Gaon Sabha property. However on account of some mistake the name of the plaintiff was expunged from all the 5 plots though he has been continuing in possession and Pattas have been illegally executed by the L.M.C. in favour of the defendants Dalchand and Budha. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed to be Bhummidhar of plot No. 229, 230-Sa and 272. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that plot No. 230 and 229 have been let out to the defendants, hence the plaintiff has no title in these plots. After the evidence the suit was decreed on February 28, 1978 and the plaintiff was declared Bhumidhar of plots No. 229, 230 and 272 whereas his name was ordered to be expunged only from plot No. 168 which was the new number of plot No. 237/2 and 237/3. Subsequently defendants No. 5 and 6 Gopichand and Nanki applied to the trial court to set aside the decree dated Feb. 28, 1978 and to implead them in the case since they have obtained the sale deed of plot No. 168 from the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated October 20, 1976 after deposition 10 times of rent on October 11, 1975 in the Tahsil. Sri Gopichand and Nanki, therefore, also alleged that they have become Bhumidhars in possession of plot No. 168 and the proceedings of surrender about that plot are illegal. On this application the trial cour set aside its order bated February 28, 1978 and impleaded Gopichand and Nanki as defendants. Sri Gopichand and Nanki, therefore, also alleged that they have become Bhumidhars in possession of plot No. 168 and the proceedings of surrender about that plot are illegal. On this application the trial cour set aside its order bated February 28, 1978 and impleaded Gopichand and Nanki as defendants. Then a written statement was filed by these two fresh defendants and evidence on their behalf was also led. Thereafter a compromise was field by the plaintiff and the defendants Gopichand and Nanki whereby it was agreed between them that the plaintiff shall be Bhumidahr or plots No. 299, 230 and 272 whereas the defendant Gopichand and Nanki must be held to be Bhumidhars of plot No. 168. 4. The trial court by a fresh judgment maintained its previous order passed earlier on February 28, 1978 and declared the plaintiff to be Bhumidhar of plot Nos. 229, 230 and 272 and ordered about plot No. 168 to be recorded as Gaon Sabha property. Smt. Nanki and Gopi Chand preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed and the suit was dismissed, hence this second appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. A copy of the order of the Tahsildar Bulandshahar dated September 11, 1963 is on the file which shows that the application for surrender has been moved on October 1, 1962 by the plaintiff and the surrender was allowed on September 11, 1963 by the Tahsildar. A copy of the Khatauni 1370 to 1372 Fasli is also on record in which the said order of Tahsildar was incorporated and the name of the plaintiff was ordered to be expunged from plot No. 237/2 and 237/3 whose new number was recorded as 168 in the same Khatauni of the consolidation having already intervened. It is, therefore, proved that the name of plaintiff was ordered to be expunged form plot No. 168 and not from the remaining plots. It appears that no account of some mistake plot No. 168 continued to be recorded in the name of the plaintiff while his name was expunged from the plots in suit. Obviously he had not made any surrender about those plots, hence his name could not be expunged therefrom and , therefore the judgment of the trial court was perfectly correct and could not be altered in appeal. Obviously he had not made any surrender about those plots, hence his name could not be expunged therefrom and , therefore the judgment of the trial court was perfectly correct and could not be altered in appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner arrived at the conclusion that since the name of the plaintiff continued to be recorded over plot No. 168 and by exploiting that entry he has executed the sale deed in favour of Nanki and Gopichand, hence his suit is barred by estoppel. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that there is no question of the suit being barred by estoppel because the possession of the plaintiff was never lost over the plots in suit and his title remained un-effected, hence his Bhumidari rights remained intact and they could not be effected merely because a wrong sale deed about another plot had been executed. 7. I find force in this contention. It is proved that the plaintiff continued to remain in possession over the plots in suit, hence the never lost is title thereon. His suit was therefore rightly decreed by the trial court and was wrongly dismissed in appeal. The defendant Nani and Gopichand could seek another remedy against the plaintiff and they could not be declared Bhumidhars of plot No. 168 in these proceedings because the surrender had been effect along before the date of the sale deed in their favour. Their appeal was, therefore wrongly allowed and, therefore, the order of the appellate court deserves to be set aside. 8. In such circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The order of the appellate court is set aside an the judgment and decree passed by the trial court are restored.