JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These two appeals have been filed under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of Additional Commisioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 25-5-1974 passed in appeal No. 469 of 1973 against the order and decree dated 12-3-1973 Passed by Judicial Officer (Revenue), Bansdih, district Ballia in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant Raghubir filed the suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act that he is in possession from more than 40 years over the disputed plot no. 20 given at the foot of the plaint. He should be declared as sirdar of the suit plot now bhumidhar and if he is found out of possession his possession should be also given. A previous suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant Raghubir and it was withdrawn and after removing the defect he filed this suit The suit was contested by the defendant on the the ground has the plaintiff has no concern with the suit plot the land was sold by the landlord to defendant first set Lachhman. He subsequently sold the suit plot to them. They are in possession and the suit should be dismissed. After taking the evidence of the parties the trial court dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 12-3-1973. Raghubir plaintiff-appellant filed the first appeal before the Additional Commissioner who after hearing the parties decreed the suit in respect of 2 plots and dismissed the suit for rest of the plots, hence the plaintiff-appellant has filed this suit. The appeal No. 556 of 1973-74 against the dismissal of the suit and defendants have filed the second appeal No.618 of 1972-73. There mutation applications were also subject matter of the applications were also subject matter of the dispute court. Three revisions were also filed before the learned Additional Commissioner who has disposed of those revisions by the same impugned orders which are subject in these two appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. Perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that his client was found in possession over plot no. Three revisions were also filed before the learned Additional Commissioner who has disposed of those revisions by the same impugned orders which are subject in these two appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. Perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that his client was found in possession over plot no. 489 and 1665, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not in possession over the rest of the plot because the land was recorded originally to Smt. Parvati Kunwar and Smt. Dharikshna Kunwari. Smt. Parvati Kunwar sold the property to Lachhman in 1961 and lachhman sold the properties to the defendants No. 3rd, 4th and 5th set in 1970. In subsequent sale plots No. 489 and 1665 has not been sold to any of the defendants 3rd to 5th set. On the basis of this fact the first appellate court has decreed the suit for these two plots. The result of this that the claim of the plaintiff was found to be correct regarding these two plots on the basis of which the learned counsel for the appellant Raghubir argued that if these two plots found in possession of the plaintiff then rest of the plots was also in possession of the plaintiff therefore, no suit for ejectment was filed under Section 204 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act within the prescribed period of the time, hence Raghubir has become non-transferable bhumidhar of the suit plots. 5. The first appellate court has not given a categorical finding whether appellant Raghubir was in possession over these two plots. He has only decreed the suit in respect of these two plots on the basis of fact that it was not sold to defendants 3rd to 5th set by Lachhman. The trial court has given a categorical finding that plaintiff Raghubir was never in possession over the disputed plots. He has evaluated the evidence on the Point of possession. The first appellate court has not discussed this important aspect of the possession, therefore, the order and decree of the first appellate court are not suitable therefore, these two appeals are allowed and the order of first appellate court is set aside and the first appeal is remanded to the first appellate court to redetermine and re-adjudicate the question of fact and law involved on the point of possession. The trial court has discharged its burden on the point of possession, therefore, it is not necessary to remand the file to the trial court. This order shall govern S.A. No. 556 of 1973-74 and S.A. No. 618 of 1972-73/Ballia.