JUDGMENT Stuti Kacker, Member - Second appeal No. 24 of 1986-87 has been filed by Sukhdev and others and is directed against the judgement and decree dated 21-10-86 passed by Sri Jagdish Singh, Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, allowing appeal No. 129 of 1983, Ram Bahadur and others v. Sukhdev and others, and setting aside the judgement and decree dated 26-6-83 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulpur, in suits under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. Revision No. 11, which is treated as a second appeal, is also directed against the common judgement and decree dated 21-10-86 of learned Additional Commissioner in Appeal No. 130 of 1983, Ram Bahadur v. Tulsi Ram and others. Both the appeals have been heard and are being decided together as parties and the controversy involved are the same. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Ram Bahadur, plaintiff, filed two suits under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 against two different sets of defendants, one Sukhdev and others, and the other, Tulsi Ram and others who are vendors from Smt. Hasani, the tenure holder of the land in suit Plaintiff alleged that the name of Smt. Hasani, defendant, had been wrongly mutated as widow of Babu, deceased, that she had remarried with one Mewa Lal and as such could not inherit the property of deceased Babu and had no right to execute sale deeds in favour of defendants in the two suits The suits were contested by the defendants on the ground that Smt. Hasani was the widow of Babu, deceased and had every right to execute sale deeds in favour of defendants. The trial court dismissed the suits of the plaintiff Ram Bahadur, on the grounds that remarriage of Smt. Hasani had not been proved and that she was the widow of Babu, deceased. Two separate appeals were filer by plaintiff, Ram Bahadur, before the learned Additional Confirmation who reversed the findings of the learned trial court and decreed the plaintiffs suits holding that the fact of remarriage of Smt. Hasani with Mewa of village Satanpur had been proved, that she could not be held to be the widow aid legal heir of Babu, deceased, and that the sale deeds executed by her in favour of other defendants were illegal and without any authority. 4. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants in appeal No. 24 argued that the findings of the learned lower appellate court are perverse and illegal in as much as the trial court believing the oral evidence on record had arrived at definite finding that Smt. Hasani was widow of Babu and the fact of remarriage by her had not been proved, and that the kutumb register mod need by the plaintiff was not reliable. The lower appellate court without discus sing the oral and documentary evidence on record and without giving valid reasons for discarding the findings of the trial court has set aside the findings arrived at by the trial court, which is illegal The learned counsel urged that the first appellate court itself had clearly held that the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff-respondent on the point of remarriage was not reliable and give it findings only on the basis kutumb register of village satanpur, trial court. In the absence of proof of remarriage, the entries of Kutumb register of village Baksera, could not be taken to be proved and a gospel truth. The learned counsel argued that Smt. Hasani who is said to have remarried has executed a sale deed in favour of appellants and her statement regarding denial of remarriage was the best piece of evidence. Relying on 1983 R.D. 29, the learned counsel urged that if this Court finds that the Judgement of the first appellate court is not in accordance with law, then the matter should be remanded to the lower appellate court for decision according to law, or that this Court may give its own verdict on the basis of evidence available on record. Relying on AIR 1981 Alld. (H.C.) 330, the learned counsel pointed out that the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates the treatment of the points arising for determination and incorporation of the reason for the decision thereon in the Judgement of the first appellate court, but the learned Additional Commissioner did not give any reasons for discarding the oral evidence adduced in the case. Similar arguments were advanced in the other connected appeal filed on behalf of Smt. Hasani and her vendees. Similar arguments were advanced in the other connected appeal filed on behalf of Smt. Hasani and her vendees. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Mewa Lal was the maternal brother of Smt. Hasani and no marriage could take place as he came in prohibited degree of the family, that the learned Addl. Commissioner had placed reliance on the copy of the kutumb register of village Satanpur which was neither proved nor its vlfacity was verified and the other documentary evidence adduced by the appellants and their oral evidence were discarded without giving any reasons, and as such the Judgement and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court was bad in law. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, contended that the lower appellate court has given a finding that the extract of kutumb register of village Satanpur had been proved wherein Smt. Hasani was mentioned as wife of Mewa. The learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, rightly concluded that Smt. Hasani had remarried with Mewa of village Satanpur. Once it was proved that Smt. Hasani had remarried, she had been left with no rights in the land in dispute and any sale deed executed by her in favour of defendants in the two suits was illegal and the vendees could claim no rights on that basis. The learned counsel submitted that the finding of fact regarding remarriage recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner was based on material admissible in evidence on record and should not be interfered with in second appeal. 7. The point in issue chiefly is whether Smt. Hasani had remarried Mewa of village Satanpur as alleged by the plaintiff-respondent. I find that the learned trial court had based its finding regarding remarriage on oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, and it found that the copy of kutumb register of village Satanpur showing Smt. Hasani as wife of Mewa had not been proved, and that the oral evidence convincingly proved that Smt. Hasani had not remarried. The learned Additional Commissioner while reversing this finding has given no cogent reasons for discarding the oral evidence. He has held that remarriage had been proved by entries in kutumb register of village Satanpur, which is just one of the documentary evidences on record. The learned Additional Commissioner while reversing this finding has given no cogent reasons for discarding the oral evidence. He has held that remarriage had been proved by entries in kutumb register of village Satanpur, which is just one of the documentary evidences on record. Bat the veracity of the kutumb register is challenged by the other side, in respect of which the learned Additional Commissioner has not given any clear cut finding. The learned Additional Commissioner has also not discussed the evidentiary value of the other documentary evidence on record. In this case, the statement of Smt. Hasani in respect of her remarriage was the most important piece of evidence. Smt. Hasani has deposed that the person with whom remarriage is alleged is her maternal brother (through maternal aunt mausi) and who has his own wife and children. The point to be decided is whether such an alleged remarriage, if any, is a valid one having the sanction of law. I, therefore, find it to be a fit case to be remanded to the learned Additional Commissioner for decision afresh after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record and giving clear-cut reasons for his own findings. Consequently, this appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Additional Commissioner is set aside, and the matter is sent back to him for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. This order governs Second appeals Nos. 24 and 11 of 1986-87.