JUDGMENT Brijendra Kumar, Member - This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated May 8, 1986 passed by the Additional Commissioner (I), Varanasi Division, Varanasi in appeal No. 25 of 1986. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Rama Shanker brought a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the declaration of his title. The State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha along with Mahabir, Bhulai and Ram Achhaibar were impleaded as defendants. His case is that according to the family pedigree the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 belong to the same family and the land in suit is the Joint Property over which the plaintiff and defendant both are in possession. The names, of defendants 3 to 5 are wrongly recorded as exclusive owner of the plots in dispute. The plaintiff has claimed to be co-tenure holder along with defendants 3 to 5. The defendant Bhulai contested the suit with the contention that neither the plaintiff nor his father made any objection during the course of the consolidation proceedings nor did they claim co-tenancy rights before the consolidation authorities. The suit is, therefore, barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. In reply, the plaintiff has contended that the question of both law and facts is involved in this case and the question of bar under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act may be answered after taking into consideration the entire evidence on the subject. The learned trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner upheld the order of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order that the present second appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Sri Ganga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the plaintiff - appellant is entitled to share in plot Nos. 1294, 1341, 1403 and 1426 and that the suit is not barred under Section 49 of he U.P.C.H. Act because the right and title were not adjudicated upon during the consolidation proceedings. It was also contended that the appellant was minor at the time of consolidation. 1294, 1341, 1403 and 1426 and that the suit is not barred under Section 49 of he U.P.C.H. Act because the right and title were not adjudicated upon during the consolidation proceedings. It was also contended that the appellant was minor at the time of consolidation. Another contention made by the learned counsel is that under Order XIV, Rule 2, C.P.C. all issues should be decided simultaneously. The preliminary issue regarding bar under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act could not be decided because there was no contest between the parties during the consolidation operations. In support, the learned counsel has placed reliance on 1985 R.J. 27. Sri H.N. Srivastava, counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellant was a party to the consolidation proceedings and so the case is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and Order XIV, Rule 2, C.P.C. is not applicable. Reliance has been placed on 1976 R.D. II 313 and 255. He has further contended that it makes no difference if the plaintiff appellant was a minor at the time of consolidation. His next contention is that the cause of action arose after the consolidation proceedings. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the name of the respondent is recorded against the plots in a representative capacity, the appellant is co-sharer. Reliance has been placed on 1981 R.D. 103 and 1987 R.D. 361. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. It is undisputed that Mahadeo, the father of the plaintiff-appellant Rama Shanker is the brother of the defendant respondent Mahabir, Bhulai and Ram Dawai. It is also undisputed that there had been no adjudication upon the title and rights of the plaintiff and defendants during the course of consolidation operations. It is also undisputed that the plots in dispute were recorded as Navin-Parti during the consolidation proceedings. It is however, not understood how the defendant respondent Mahabir and Bhulai were recorded as SHANKRA-MANIYA BHUMIDHAR in the Khatauni 1387 - 92F. I find a compromise paper No. 22/6 entered into Ganesh son of Ram Saran and the defendant Bhulai, Mahabir Para 2 of the compromise cites that Bhulai and Mahabir are the Sirdars of the plots in dispute. On the basis of this compromise, the suit filed by Ganesh was decreed on June 18, 1971 and the decree was executed. I find a compromise paper No. 22/6 entered into Ganesh son of Ram Saran and the defendant Bhulai, Mahabir Para 2 of the compromise cites that Bhulai and Mahabir are the Sirdars of the plots in dispute. On the basis of this compromise, the suit filed by Ganesh was decreed on June 18, 1971 and the decree was executed. But the question remained unanswered as to how could-Ganesh enter into a compromise in respect of the plots which were the property of the Gaon Sabha. Surprisingly enough neither the Gaon Sabha nor the State appear to have contested the suit. So in my opinion, the whole proceedings appear to be shadowy and the defendant respondents appear to have usurped the Gaon Sabha property. It, therefore, calls for a full scale enquiry covering both question of law and facts. 5. I am, therefore, satisfies from the reasons given above that question of both law and fact is involved in this case and the trial court should have pronounced the judgment on all the issues framed by it. Since it is a fit case to be remanded, the appeal is allowed and the orders of both the courts below are quashed. The case is remanded to the trial court for settling all the issues afresh and decide the case on merits. Apart from the direction given above, it is further directed that the trial court shall frame an issue as to whether the defendants are Sirdars of the land in dispute and whether the land belong to the Gaon Sabha. 6. Parties shall appear before the trial court on December 22, 1988. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Collector, jaunpur for necessary action.