JUDGMENT M. M. Gopal, Member (J.) - This is a second appeal against the judgment dated 6. 6. 78 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 29. 11. 77 of the trial court. The trial court has dismissed the suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that Chattar Singh and others have filed a suit on the ground that they are the Sirdars of the land in suit and are in possession since before the abolition of Zamindari Act came into force. The defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, hence the present suit for declaration has been filed. 4. From the side of the State Government and Gaon Sabha written statements were filed. They denied the right of the plaintiffs Chattar Singh and others over the land in suit and alleged that the Gaon Sabha allotted this land in favour of the plaintiffs but they were ejected from the same and the allotment has been cancelled and the possession was taken by the Gaon Sabha. No right can be acquired by the plaintiffs over the land of the Gaon Sabha. 5. The trial court by its judgment dated 29. 11. 77 dismissed the suit and held that the plaintiff was not in possession long before the Zamindari Abolition Act came into force. It was a property of the Gaon Sabha and allotment was done in favour of the plaintiff Chattar Singh and others, but the same allotment was cancelled by the S.D.O. by his order dated 13-5-68. It was also held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the land in suit either on the basis of the entry or on the basis of the possession. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal on the ground that the order dated 13-5-68 was not executed within one year and the possession as alleged by the plaintiff was taken on December 1976 (the suit was filed on 23-9-76). 7. The lower appellate court has set aside the judgment of the trial court and has decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff's ejectment on the basis of the order dated 13-5-68 has not been done within one year and they remained in possession hence they acquired the right. 7. The lower appellate court has set aside the judgment of the trial court and has decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff's ejectment on the basis of the order dated 13-5-68 has not been done within one year and they remained in possession hence they acquired the right. This ground on the face of it, appears to be wrong and illegal. For the argument sake, decree or order may not be executed for one year, but the fact remains that there is an order for ejectment and there is no finding by the lower appellate Court that the plaintiffs were in possession since the time of the enforcement of the abolition of Zamindari. Hence it cannot be said that on this very ground they acquired the right. 8. If the order was not executed, the position of the plaintiffs' possession can be only of a trespasser and on that basis how the plaintiffs can acquire the right, is to be seen. This is a finding which should be given by the learned Additional Commissioner and it has not been done so. The lower appellate court has to give reasons for not believing the reasons given by the trial court and then to give its own finding on the basis of reasons, legally tenable and it has not been done so by the lower appellate court. 9. The learned Additional Commissioner has not only committed error apparent on the face of it but has wrongly and illegally exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. 10. I, therefore, allow the second appeal, set aside the judgment dated 6-6-78 of the lower appellate court and remand the case to the lower appellate court for deciding the appeal in accordance with law and on the basis of the observations made above. Costs easy.