- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a revision petition preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10-6-1998 aris ing out of a judgment and decree dated 12-5-1997 in a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case arc that Mahendra Singh instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZAand LR Act against the defendants, impleading the UP State and the Gaon Sahha, concerned as necessary parties with the prayer that he is in possession of the suit plot No. 174 area. 174 hectare situate in village Majholi, Moradabad as bhumidhar with trans ferable rights on the basis of a will deed executed in his favour by Nankoo deceased as such the declaration of his rights be made accordingly. The learned trial Court through its judgment and decree dated 12-5- 1997 decreed the aforesaid suit. Ag grieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Com missioner allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 12-5-1997 passed by the, learned trial Court. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the aforesaid impugned order dated 10-6-1998 passed by the lerned lower revisionist Court is absolute ly illegal incorrect improper and also against the facts and evidence on record that it has illegally set aside the finding based on the evidence on record without giving good reasons therefor ; that the relevant and material facts and cir cumstances have been illegally ignored and the revision has been allowed on ir relevant consideralions that the learned lower revisional Court has committed gross irregularity in disbelieving the genuine registered will deed executed in favour of the revisionist on baseless grounds ; that the findings recorded by it are based on no evidence and facts of the case and as such the same is table to be set aside that the will deed in question was registered on 13-5-1980 and has been properly and duly proved by the attesting witnesses ; that the finding recorded in mutation case in respect of the aforesaid will deed is not binding in regular suit and the aforesaid will deed which was proved by the marginal wilnesses cannot be questioned in any manner by the contesting opposite party; that the finding recorded by the learned lower revisional Court is quite perverse unreasonable erroneous and un sustainable and as such the aforesaid im pugned order be sei aside. In support of his contention he has ciled the ease laws reported in 1994 RD 388 (HC) and 1973 RD 444 (HC ). The learned DGC (R) appear ing for the State of U. P. submiued that the learned lower revisional Court has righlly sc I aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and rightly al lowed the revision petition through its aforesaid impugned order and as such in the facts and circumsiances of the case it must be maintained. I have closely and carefully con sidered the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record on file. On the examination of the record, it is abundanlly clear that the learned trial Court has properly analysed, considered and discussed the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar over the suit land on the basis of the will deed. All the points at issue have been properly examined by the learned trial Court in its aforesaid judgment and decree dated 12-5-1997 in correct perspective of law. The aforemenitioned order passed by ihe learned trial Court is well-discussed, well-reasoned, well- considered, well-founded and wholly warranted in law. i see no reason to disagree with the conclusions drawn by it in its a foremen tioiied judg ment and decree dated 12-5-1997 as the finding of the learned trial Court is based on proper appraisal of the facts and evidence on record. While analysing the material facts and evidence on record; the material and relevant aspects of the matter in question have been properly examined and settled principles of law have been properly followed.
(3.) ON the contrary, a perusal of the aforementioned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower revisional Court clearly reveals that it has not reversed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on merital points by means of cogent and convincing reasons and as such the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commis sioner is quite unfounded and wholly unwar ranted in law, which cannot be sustained. The finding recorded by the learned lower revisional Court is based on conjectures and surmises as well as flimsy grounds having no legs to stand upon. There has been a clear violation of substantive natural justice and manifest miscarriage of justice and fair play has been caused to the revisionist warranting interference in this second revision petition by this Court. Having closely scrutinised the mat ter in question, I find that the will deed in question is well proved to the lawful and genuine the finding in the mutation proceedings cannot be treated as final and is not binding in the regular suit. The revisionist has been quite successful to substantiate his claims by adducing con vincing and cogent evidence. On a scrutiny of the records, I find myself unable to agree with the conclusions drawn by the learned lower revisional Court which was rendered the aforementioned impugned cryptic and cursory order clearly calling for inter ference by this Court.;