JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member- This is a second appeal filed by Smt. Margshree against the Judgement and decree of the Additional Commissioner Agra Division, Agra dated 24-8-1987 whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 Shanker Lal against the Judgement and decree of the trial court dated 30-6-1986 was allowed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that Sarnam Singh and Shanker Lal were real brothers being son of Ram Charan. On the death of Ram Charan the name of Shanker Lal alone was mutated in the papers on the basis of some Will and mutual compromise. Sarnam Singh challenged this entry by bringing the present suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and claimed himself to be co-bhumidhar along with Shanker Lal over the disputed land. 3. This suit was contested by Shanker Lal but the suit was decreed and loth Shanker Lal and Sarnam Singh were declared co-bhumidhars. 4 Shanker Lal went up in appeal against the Judgement and decree of the trial court before the Additional Commissioner. During the pendency of the anneal Sarman Singh died. Smt. Margshree the present appellant filed an application for substitution on the basis of a registered Will in her favour executed by Sarnam Singh during his life-time. Another applicant for substitution was moved by Shanker Lal as well being the real brother of Sarnam Singh. The learned Additional Commissioner told her that since Smt. Margshree was not preferential heir with respect to Shanker Lal who was the real brother, hence her name could not be substituted for Sarnam Singh. Her application for substitution was therefore, rejected and Shanker Lal being the preferential heir under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was allowed to be substituted as a result of which the appeal was allowed and Shanker Lal was declared to be sole bhumidhar of the entire land. This appeal has preferred against the same Judgement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant requested that the appeal may be converted into revision because an appeal would not legally lie against such Judgement and decree since Smt. Margshree was not a party in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, converted into revision since the request seems to be reasonable. 6. The respondent Shanker Lal is absent inspire of sufficient notice. The other respondents are also absent despite sufficient notice. The appeal is, therefore, converted into revision since the request seems to be reasonable. 6. The respondent Shanker Lal is absent inspire of sufficient notice. The other respondents are also absent despite sufficient notice. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned Judgement and order. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that since the Will had been executed in favour of the revisionist it was she whose name should have been substituted in place of Sarnam Singh and the name of shanker Lal could not be substituted and, therefore, the order of the lower appellate court is bad. 8. After going through the impugned order I find that the learned Additional Commissioner did not at all weigh the genuineness of the Will filed by the revisionist and ignored it out rightly without giving any valid reasons for the same. Under Order 22, Rule 2 C P. C. a legal representative is brought, on record in the event of the death of a party and it is no where provided that an heir strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 9 of 1951 alone is to be substituted. The lower appellate court does not seem to have carefully gone through the provisions of that order and without giving any reasons for ignoring the Will passed order in favour of Shanker Lal which order cannot be held to be justified when the revisionist was not given any Opportunity to prove her Will. In case the Will was genuine it was necessary that the revisionist Smt. Margshree should have been substituted because a person in whose favour a Will has been executed under Section 160 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 sets aside the line of succession as provided in Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. and I.R. Act. It was, therefore, the duty of the Learned Additional Commissioner to examine the genuineness and the propriety of the Will presented by the revisionist and after closely scrutinising it should have passed a valid order. It was, therefore, the duty of the Learned Additional Commissioner to examine the genuineness and the propriety of the Will presented by the revisionist and after closely scrutinising it should have passed a valid order. He could not send the case to the trial court also under the proviso attached to Rule 5, Order 22 C. P C. In an, event the Judgement and decree passed by the lower appellate court are bad in law and must be set aside and the appeal must be remanded back to him to decide the question of substitution after affording both the parties to produce evidence and then to decide the appeal in accordance with law.