JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is plaintiff's second appeal under Section 331 or U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 28-6-1984 upholding the judgment and decree of the Extra Officer Bahraich dated 29-8-1981 dismissing the plaintiff's suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Plaintiff-appellant Bhagoley brought this suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on the ground that he is bhumidhar of plot No. 755 area 415 acres about which proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Were initiated between him and defendant Ram Lal which were decided in favour of the defendant even by the Sessions Judge hence the plaintiff brought this suit for the ejectment of the defendant. 3. Defendant's case is that he has been continuing in adverse possession from prior to zamindari Abolition and even in 1356 to 1359 fasli it was he who was in possession and, therefore, his rights have already matured and that is why possession was delivered to him by the criminal courts in the proceedings of Section 145 Cr.P.C. It was also alleged that other co-recorded cotenants have not been impleaded in the suit, hence it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. The trial court upheld the defendant's claim and dismissed the suit. 5. The same view was upheld in appeal, hence this second appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the main question is that of possession which is one of fact and which has been concurrently decided in favour of the defendant by both the courts below, hence the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the defendant's possession over the plot of the plaintiff from prior to the zamindari abolition is not proved because the defendant was in possession over his own plot No. 754 which is adjacent to plot No. 755 and, therefore, the suit was but to be decreed. 9. In my opinion the question as to whether the defendant has been in possession from prior to zamindari abolition is one of fact on which the finding of both the courts below are concurrent which cannot be disturbed by this court. 9. In my opinion the question as to whether the defendant has been in possession from prior to zamindari abolition is one of fact on which the finding of both the courts below are concurrent which cannot be disturbed by this court. The learned Additional Commissioner has given a clear finding that the possession of the defendant has been continuing from the time of Samaidin the father of the plaintiff. It was further argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned Additional Commissioner did not himself discuss the oral and documentary evidence on record in order to make his own assessment about the nature and period of possession of the defendant and, therefore, his judgment should be set aside. In my opinion this argument is untenable because when the appellate court confirms the judgment and decree of the lower court it is not necessary that it should itself discuss the entire evidence. It is sufficient to give a finding on the basis of the evidence as scrutinized by the trial court. The appellate court can be required to discuss the oral evidence only when it differs with the findings of the trial court. However in case of agreement with the trial court it would not be necessary to discuss the evidence. Consequently the learned Additional Commissioner did not commit and illegality or irregularity if he did not discuss the evidence on record and based his finding merely on the judgment of the trial court. 10. It was further argued that the trial court committed illegality by rejecting the application of the plaintiff for appointing commission and, therefore, the case should be remanded back to the trial court for appointing a Commission. In my opinion this argument has no force because when both the courts below have held that the possession of the defendant is on the entire area of plot No. 755 there is no question of the appointment of any commission in making any sort of survey on the spot. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have clearly held that the plaintiff is out of possession from the time of his father hence the suit was rightly dismissed. 11. This has no force and is accordingly dismissed.