JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act the judgment and decree dated June 18, 1974 of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut allowing the appeal against the judgment and decree of the Judicial Officer/Assistant Collector, Muzaffarnagar dated May 2, 1973 in suit No. 145 of 1972. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the appellant Balla brought a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act alleging that he has been continuing in possession for more than 20 years on the disputed land but his name is not recorded in the papers and instead the defendant No. 1 Meedu is recorded as Sirdar of the land which entry in wrong. He, therefore, prayed that to be declared Sirdar and the entries be accordingly corrected. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants including Meedu on the ground that it is Meedu and not the plaintiff who is the Sirdar of the land in dispute. Meedu further alleged that the plaintiff had shared in cultivation with him for about two years but later some dispute arose between them and then the plaintiff was turned out and that the latter has no title. 4. The trial court decreed the suit and held the plaintiff to be the Sirdar. 5. The State went up in appeal which was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court were reversed, hence this second appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 7. The learned counsel or the appellant argued that Meedu did not file any appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the judgment of the trial court when as a matter of fact it was he whose interest was directly involved and that the State and the Gaon Sabha were merely formal parties and their interest was not affected by the judgment of the trial court, hence they had no right of appeal. 8. I do not think that this argument has any force. The State and the Gaon Sabha are necessary party to the suit and they are as a matter of fact landholders and that the tenant pays rent to the State. Consequently the State has every right to file appeal against the judgment of the trial court if is feels aggrieved. 9. The State and the Gaon Sabha are necessary party to the suit and they are as a matter of fact landholders and that the tenant pays rent to the State. Consequently the State has every right to file appeal against the judgment of the trial court if is feels aggrieved. 9. The learned D.G.C. (R.) contended that in this case the facts form a case of illegal transfer in favour of the the plaintiff by Meedu and there seems to the some conclusiveness between both of them, hence the State had every right to go in appeal. 10. I find force in this contention and, therefore, I disagree with the argument raised on behalf, of the appellant about the propriety of the appeal filed by the State before the Additional Commissioner. I find that the State being a necessary party fell within the definition of aggrieved person and could file an appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the decree and judgment of the trail court. The appeal before the Additional Commissioner was, therefore, valid. 11. Now as regards the merits of the case the learned Additional Commissioner has held that the plaintiff was never in possession because his name was never recorded in any capacity over the land. This finding is about a question of fact and cannot be disturbed in the stage of the second appeal. It could be interfered with if it was perverse but the evidence on record is otherwise. The plaintiff besides producing himself and one more witness could not produce any document in which his name could have been found recorded in any capacity in any year. The defendant Meedu has not accepted possession and has tried to lend support by evasive reply in statement also, therefore does not prove the possession of the plaintiff. rater it shown collusiveness in this part. In the absence of any documentary evidence the suit could not be decreed merely on the basis of oral evidence which was not upto the mark. 12. In such circumstances the suit was wrongly decreed and it was rightly reversed on appeal. This appeal is, therefore, without any merit and is dismissed.