JUDGMENT

S.N. Singh, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of a suit filed by the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 for the ejectment of the petitioners from plot No. 1171. They claimed to be hereditary tenants of the plot in dispute, being successor-in-interest of the previous hereditary tenant and, in the alternative, by prescription under Section 180 (2) of the U. P. Tenancy Act.

2. The suit of the opposite parties was contested by the petitioners, who claimed themselves to be hereditary tenants by prescription. It was further alleged that the land in suit was not identifiable. Pleas based on res judicata and limitation were also taken.

3. The trial Court framed 12 issues and, after dealing with every one of them, dismissed the suit holding the defendants to have become hereditary tenants and Sirdars of the plot in suit. Opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 preferred an appeal which was heard by an Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner, being of the opinion that the State and Land holder were necessary parties, without going into the merits of the case, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and remanded the case for de novo trial with a dire