JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - The appeal has been filed under Section 331 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly dated 30-12-1977 passed in appeal No. 26 of 1973 against the decree and judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur dated 7-12-1973, passed in a suit under Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that the appellant purchased 1.13 acres acres area of plot No. 240 of Village Gurgavan, Pargana and Tahsil Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur from Habib Ullah and Jaki Ullah, defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Defendant Mahasaya Deo Dutt claiming whole of the area and have got his name recorded in Class 9 over the area he has purchased, hence the suit for declaration that he is bhumidhar of the suit plot and in possession. Mahasaya Deo Dutt contested the suit on the ground that there is no division of plot No. 240 area 2.26 acres. He is in possession over whole of the area of the plot. The plot is not identifiable. He also pleaded that he has got the plots from the defendants 2 and 3. The trial court after taking the evidence decreed the suit for declaration of bhumidhari and as well as for possession. The appeal was filed against that decree and judgment by the defendant Mahasaya Deo Dutt and the first appellate court has allowed the appeal and had dismissed the suit on the ground that the plot is not identifiable on the spot, hence this second appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No one is present from the side of the defendants. Perused the record. 4. The plot No. 240 is shown in the khata of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as Minjumla number with an area of 1.13. The plot No. 240 Minjumla area 1.13 acres is also shown in Khatauni 1373 to 1379 fasli in the khata of defendant-respondent Mahasaya Deo Dutt. If the suit plot is undivided on the spot then the respondent Mahasaya Deo Dutt and the vendors of the suit plots were co-tenant. Therefore, the suit could not have been dismissed regarding the declaration of bhumidhari rights of the plaintiff-appellant. If the suit plot is undivided on the spot then the respondent Mahasaya Deo Dutt and the vendors of the suit plots were co-tenant. Therefore, the suit could not have been dismissed regarding the declaration of bhumidhari rights of the plaintiff-appellant. If the suit plot was divided on the spot then it has to be determined whether the respondent Mahasaya Deo Dutt has perfected any right or title or not? Both the courts below have not considered the question of identifiability of the suit plot. The trial court has just held that suit is identifiable. How it is identifiable, what was the evidence of the identifiability has not been discussed at all. The first appellate Court has also not discussed this issue that the plot is identifiable or not? The first appellate court has just held that the plot is not identifiable. 5. In these circumstances of the facts the appeal is allowed ex parte and the decree and judgment of the first appellate court and that of the trial court are set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial court to take evidence on the question of identifiability and decide it afresh.