Rajesh Tandon, J. - (1.)Heard Shri N.S. Negi, Counsel for the appellants and Shri U.P.S. Negi, Counsel for the respondents.
(2.)By the present second appeal filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1987 passed by the District Judge, Chamoli.
(3.)Second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law mentioned in the memorandum of appeal:-
"1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Judge was justified while decreeing the suit for declaration as there was no corresponding entry of the plaintiff-respondents rights recorded in the Halat Nama Gaon of the defendant-appellants?

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Judge was justified while relying on the order dated 18.12.1936 of the A.R.D. which was not implemented and was subsequently superseded and overruled by the order of the Settlement Officer on 14.5.1939 and 21.12.198?

3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Judge was justified while not appreciating the provisions laid down in section 84 (sub-section 3) and section 234 (sub-section 1) of the Land Revenue Act as the Settlement Officer alone was only competent to record the customary rights in Halat Gaon of different villages -

;