JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member. - The facts are : on 30-6-1972 Bana and others institute a declaratory law suit under Section 229-B Z.A.L.R. Act in the court of Sub-Division Officer, Mohammdabad, Ghazipur. The pleading has set forth the contention that when consolidation has set in, C.H. From 5 was distributed recording name of Haridwar's. At this, plaintiffs alongwith Jhangi D/1 and Changur protested in an objection under Section 9-B U.P. C.H. Act. This eventually led to a settlement which has done to still the controversy. Plaintiffs along with Jhangi D/1 and Changuri : six persons, were declared co-sirdars tenants in possession. Significantly, no dispute arose as respects share inter se or was subject of determination then and there; at later stages in consolidation this could not be open to a decision. the plaintiff's complaint is that defendant in league with some officials had caused his share doted as ; in consequence a chak for an area of 13.86 acres is separately carved out. Later Jhangi D/1 executed a sale-deed of his share to Shakoor D/2. On learning this, plaintiffs lodged a protest in the court of Settlement Officer Consolidation; this was dismissed at time barred. So a revision was carried in the court of Deputy Director, Consolidation. He decided on 29-4-1971 to leave open the question of determination of shares inter se the co-tenants. It is alleged that no rights had accrued to Jhangi D.1 for share and no legal rights have been transferred to Shakoor D/2. The sale-deed is bad and inoperative. The reliefs to declare plaintiffs as co-tenant sirdar with Jhangi D/1 has been prayed for. Also the prayer is to uphold the joint holding. 2. On 29-8-1972 a written statement in rebuttal is lodged by Shakoor D/2. The pleading has set forth the contention that no cause of action accused to plaintiff and they have no right or interest in the disputed land. Also they are not in possession. The rights have been finally decided in consolidation. Jhangi D/1 has made a valid transfer in his favour and he is in peaceful possession. His name has been entered in records as bhumidhar tenant. The suit is bared by Section 49, C.H. Act. 3. On 29-8-1972 a written statement if filed by State of U.P. through Collector. The claim of plaintiffs is denied. It is claimed that suit is barred by Section 49 of C.H. Act. His name has been entered in records as bhumidhar tenant. The suit is bared by Section 49, C.H. Act. 3. On 29-8-1972 a written statement if filed by State of U.P. through Collector. The claim of plaintiffs is denied. It is claimed that suit is barred by Section 49 of C.H. Act. On pleadings of parties issues were formulated on 10-10-1972. Parties have been given chance to lead their evidence, documental and oral. They have made their representation. On 4-7-1979 Sub-Divisional Officer, Mohammadabad has entered an order of dismissal of suit. An appeal is, lodged by plaintiff Bana's. On 11-12-1979 Additional Commissioner enters an order of dismissal of appeal. Aggrieved by this, second appeal is carried by plaintiff Bana's. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant. 5. In their pleading plaintiffs are specific about one concrete allegation; that no partition of joint holding with determination of shares amongst six co-tenants was gone through after compromise on 24-2-1968. This point requires careful investigation of facts. Under Section 11-A (ii) C.H. Act partition of joint holdings is done. Was this undertaken in consolidation ? Where the shares of six-contents defined among them by a judicial order ? It is well to remember that rights of tenure-holders and all contest relating thereto are first decided in a judicial forum and, then, only entries are noted in various prescribed C.H. Forms. The burden of courts is conduct a factual enquiry reaching to the heart of the matte. The pleading of defendant Shakoor D/2 is that shares have been decided in consolidation. By which court? At what stage this partition of joint holding made ? Where is the copy of judicial order ? All these question will cut like a stingray to the heart of the case. Additional Commissioner has cited observations in 1970 R.D. 282; 1977 RD 67 : 1978 RD 358 to buttress his point that rights which have been determined in consolidation are not open to re-consideration in subsequent law suit. But the question is whether the partition of joint holding has really been made inconsolidation. It is the determination to see the concrete facts with full and hard, close clarity; not the noticing of vacuous observations. If God held in one hand the 'world of law' and in the left hand the 'world of fact'. But the question is whether the partition of joint holding has really been made inconsolidation. It is the determination to see the concrete facts with full and hard, close clarity; not the noticing of vacuous observations. If God held in one hand the 'world of law' and in the left hand the 'world of fact'. I would say Lord, the world of law is for the alone; given me the pursuit of facts. It is well to remember that courts are not to move in measure with general observations or head notes of a precedent. It is to understand how the concrete facts have vibrated in relation to a provision of law. Law and fact move in reciprocal relation and it is not enough to notice abstract observation, as sadly Additional Commissioner is apt to do. When there is no precise determination of concrete facts, the application of legal provision will be open to grave misapprehension. The elucidation by courts below has not received careful and candid consideration of factual point in controversy. Counsel for appellant has argued for remand to enable parties to lead further evidence. 6. The second appeal is allowed. The orders of courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to Commissioner for disposal afresh in the light of observation made here.