JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This appeal has been filed under Section 331 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of Addl. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly dated 7-3-1979. 2. In the trial court the suit was filed by Mohd. Beg for the disputed plot. Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed the admission through the written statement that the suit plot is co-tenancy of the defendants 1 to 4. The suit was, however, dismissed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 10-2-1975. Mohd. Beg filed the first appeal before the Additional Commissioner in which defendants 1 to 4 denied the admission but the first appellate court decreed the suit, hence this second appeal by the State Government on the ground that the suit is to effect illegal transfer. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No one is present on behalf of the respondents. Perused the record. 4. When the admission of sale of co-tenancy was denied in the first appellate court it was necessary to verify whether the admission before the trial court was done by the defendant-respondent or not. In these circumstances of the case, it needs verification after taking the evidence whether the respondents have admitted the claim of the plaintiff-respondent Mohd. Beg. 5. Hence the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court to decide it afresh after taking the evidence on the point of admission.