JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This appeal has been filed by the Sate under Section 333 (4) of U.P. Act No. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of Additional Commissioner, Bareilly division Bareilly dated 23-1-79 passed against the decree and judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer. Budaun dated 25-6-1977 under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 that they have wrongly recorded in class 4 over the plot given at the foot of the plaint, therefore, they prayed that they should be declared as bhumidhars of the suit plot. The trial court decreed the suit partly and dismissed it partly. In appeal the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for all the plots after allowing the appeal, hence this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the State. No one is present from the side of the opposite-party. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner had held that the disputed plots are shown to be the property of evacuee property. He observed that he cannot consider how the disputed plot is recorded as evacuee property. No where the custodian of the evacuee property had been arrayed as party, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The decree of the first appellate court and that the case is remanded to the trial court to implead the custodian of the evacuee property and then to decide the case afresh.