- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a second appeal preferred against the judg ment and decree dated November 11, 1994 passed by the learned Add. Commis sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of a judgment and order dated 15-4-93 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act, against the defendant Chhiddan imp leading U. P. State and Gaon Sabha concerned as defendant with the prayer that the plaintiffs be declared Asami of the disputed land as detailed at the fool of the pliant. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial dismissed the aforesaid suit on April 15, 1993, Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Addl. Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal on November 11, 1994. Hence, this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records on file. For the appellant it was contended that the orders of both the learned Court below are erroneous mala fide, arbitrary and bad in the eye of law, that the learned trial Court has neither properly con sidered the evidence on record nor has given issue wise as decision, that the learned lower Appellate Court has also not examined the facts and evidence on record and has erroneously dismissed the appeal, that the entries made during the consolidation proceedings were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff-appellant as during the consolidation operation the disputed land as not disputed between the parties, that the findings of both the learned Courts below are totally wrong and illegal, as such the judgment and or ders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. In reply the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the concur rent findings of fact recorded by she learned Courts below cannot be up set without any valid and reasonable ground as such t he same be maintained. I have closely and carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have-also gone through the relevant records on file. On perusal of the records it is abun dantly clear that the plaintiffs appellant miserably failed to aggregate the matter in question before consolidation authorities during the consolidation operation without any valid ground. They have also utterly failed to adduce cogent and posi tive evidence to substantiate their claims over the disputed holding.
(3.) THE learned Addl. Commissioner has properly examined the mailer in ques tion in correct perspective of law and has drawn correct conclusion. I entirely agree with the same. Having scrutinized the matter in question, I find that no substantial ques tion of law is involved in this second appeal as such it is not maintainable. Moreover, no question of law has been framed in the memo of this second appeal. To my mind the aforesaid impugned order dated 11-11-94 passed by the learned Addl. Commis sioner is sustainable well founded and wholly warranted in law and as such, it must be maintained. No force is found in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent.;