S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THESE are two revision petition preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25-3-998 passed by the learned Additional Com­missioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28-1-1997 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act. Since the parties and the controversy involved in these two revision petitions are the same as such these are being disposed of by its common judgment and order. The revision petition No. 3 of 1998-99/Moradabad shall be the leading case.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt. Zarina in­stituted the suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act with the prayer that she may be declared Bhumidhar over the disputed land as detaied at the fool of the plaint as a legal heir of Ujira and Smt. Asghari. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial dismissed the suits on 28-1-1997. Aggrieved by this order, two appeals were preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has al­lowed the aforesaid appeals on 25-3-1998 and set aside the aforesaid judgment and decrees passed by the learned trial Court. Hence these two revision petitions. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. To understand the con­troversy involved in these two revision petitions it would be proper and relevant to repro due the following pedigrees: HusainBux I Bashir Waxir(dead) Smt. Hamidan (widow) Nasir Raseet Maseet Ujira (dead) Smt. Asghari Naxir Munir Nanhcv For the revisionist, it was contended that the learned lower appellate Court has-illegally held that the judgment and decree passed in declaratory' suit No. 108 of 1982 did not operate as res-judicata ; that it has acted without jurisdiction ignoring the aforesaid judgment and decree passed in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act instituted by Bashir impleading Smt. Asghari widowof Ujira remarried Na/.ir (defendant No. 3) and Nasir son of Hussain Bux, (defendant No. 4); that once Bashir and Nasir sons of Hussain Bux having being declared title holder in suit No. 108 of 1982, the learned lower appel­late Court has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment and decree against the heirs of Bashir and Nasir unless the afore said judgment and decree passed in suit No. 108 of 1982 was set aside ; that from the aforesaid decree, it is manifestly clear that Wazir had one son namely Ujira, born out of the wed-lock of Wazir and Hamidan who remarried Nasir. After the death of Ujira, his widow Smt. Asghari remarried Nazir ; that in this way, the rights of Smt. Asghari were extinguished on account of remarriage with Nazir S/o Nasir and 1/3 share of Wazir or his son Ujira or Asghari reverted back and devolved upon Bashir and Nasir who were alive at that lime ; that the Respondent No. 1, Smt. Zarina was born out of the wed-lock of Hamidan with Nasir and Smt. Hamidan had no right after remarriage over the disputed holding and as such Smt. Zarina could not inherit any share in the holding of Wazir; that the learned lower appellate Court has not reversed the find­ings recorded by the learned trial Court and has passed an illegal judgment and decree without considering the evidence on record adduced by the appellant and as such the aforesaid judgment and decree be set aside. In reply, the learned Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the learned lower appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal as the opposite party No. 1 Zarina is younger sister of the deceased Ujira and as such the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Commissioner be maintained.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a perusal of the records, it is crys­tal clear that the learned lower appellate Court has illegally overlooked the aforesaid judgment and decree passed in suit No. 108 of 1982 under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act on merits in consonance with the provisions of law at the hearing the parties concerned. To my mind, the aforesaid judgment and decree pussed in the aforesaid suit shall operate as res-judicata. The aforesaid impugned judgment and decree passed by' the learned lower appellate Court suffers from mis-reading of evidence and perver­sity in appraisal of evidence on record. A manifest error of law has been committed by the learned lower appellate Court which has not properly examined the relevant aspects of the facts and cir­cumstances of the instant case and has passed a cursory and slip-shod judgment and order dated 25-3-1998.;