S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) List has been revised. No one has appeared for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard.
(2.) This petition challenges the order of the Board of Revenue dated 9.4.1999 by which die Second Appeal filed by the opposite party has been allowed.
(3.) The suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. Act was decreed by the Trial Court allowed in equal share to all the parties. On the appeal filed by the petitioners the first Appellate Court by taking into account respective share of the parties as was mentioned in the concerned documents/deeds modified the share. The second appeal filed -by the opposite parties has been allowed by the Board of Revenue and the order of the Trial Court has been restored. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners this Court finds substances in the submission that the Board of Revenue while writing the judgment of reversal was required to attend the findings so recorded by the first Appellate Court. A perusal of the two judgments i.e. of the first Appellate Court and that of the second Appellate Court satisfies this Court that reasoning and the findings by which the share so given by the first Appellate Court has been reversed in a cursory manner and the second has been followed. The question of share between the parties should not have been decided in cursory manner and it was obligatory on the part of the Board of Revenue to have examined the agreement/sale deeds on the basis of which parties are claiming their specific rights/shares. The reasonings and the evidence which has been referred by the first Appellate Court was required to be dealt by the second appellate authority. In view of the aforesaid without going into further merits this Court is of the view that the matter is to be sent back to the Board of Revenue for taking fresh decision after considering the records and the findings of the first Appellate Court so that the interest of justice may met.;