- (1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 of UPZA and LR Act preferred against the order dated July 30, 1996 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated July 19, 1995 and decree dated July 27, 1995 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZ And LRAct.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant Nathu Singh instituted a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act with the prayer that he be declared bhumidhar over the disputed land as detailed at the foot of the plaint and the name of the defendants Nos. 1 and - be expunged from revenue records. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated July 19, 1995 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Addl. Commis sioner dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record on file. For the appellant it was contended that the order of both the learned Courts below are perverse and against the evidence on records and as such the same are liable to be set aside, that the learned Courts below have ignored the oral and documentary evidence adduced by I he-plaintiff appellant that the area Lekhpal concerned himself admitted the posses sion of plaintiff-appellant over the dis puted land, I hat the learned lower appel late Court has not properly considered the evidence on record that the order passed by the learned Courts below are quite erroneous and illegal as such the case be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision on merits after considering all the oral and documentary records, incorrect perspective of law. In reply the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid impugned order pas id by the learned Courts below are quite: just and proper as no illegality or irregularity on the basis of the record has been com mitted by the learned Courts below. As such the aforesaid impugned order must be maintained. In support of his conten tion he has relied upon the case law-reported in RD 1983 page 1 (HC ). I have closely and carefully con sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a scrutiny of the records it is abundantly clear that the learned trial Court has properly analyzed discussed and con sidered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case in true perspective of law. The plaintiff-appellant has utterly failed to substantiate their claims as to the possession and title over the disputed land. Only on the basis of the statement of Lekhpal concerned the plaintiff- appellant are not entitled to acquire any rights on the basis of the adverse pos session over the suit land. In fact the provisions of paras A-80, A-81, A-82 and A-1 (>2c of Land Records Mandal have not been complied with in the instant case. The plaintiff- appellant should have estab lished his actual, open, un-interrupted, notorious, hostile and exclusive posses sion over the disputed holding.
(3.) HAVING closely scrutinized the mat ter in question I find that the learned lower appellate Court has rightly uphold the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court and has dismissed the first ap peal. I find no any illegality or irregularity on the face of the record warranting any interference by this Court in this second appeal. To my mind the aforesaid im pugned order dated July 30, 1996 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner is quite just proper and in consonance of the provisions of law as such it must be sus tained. 1 find no force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the ap pellant who has miserably failed to adduce cogent and positive evidence to establish his possession as per the procedure, prescribed by law. In the facts and cir cumstances of the instant case the aforesaid case law, reported in RD 1982 page 1 (HC), is wholly applicable to the instant case. 1 find no misreading of evidence or any perversity in the appraisal of evidence, on record, in the aforesaid impugned order, passed by the learned lower appellate Court.;