S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 29-12-1997 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. arising out of the judgment and decree dated 7-12-1992/15-10-1992 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of theUPZAndLRAct.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act with the prayer that the plaintiffs be declared sole heir of the deceased, Smt. Asghari Begum and Bhumidhar of the dis­puted holding as detailed at the fool of the plaint. The learned trial Court after com­pleting the requisite trial, by means of its order dated 7-10-1992 decreed the aforesaid suit. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commis­sioner upheld the aforesaid order dated 7-10-1992 passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 29-12-1997. Hence, this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. For the appellant it was contended that the learned Additional Commissioner has totally failed to ap­preciate the evidence on record and has recorded an erroneous and perverse find­ing against the appellant ; that the judg­ment' and orders passed by the learned Courts below are arbitrary, mala fide and against the provisions of law and as such are liable to be quashed ; that the learned lower appellate Court has not considered the directions Laid down in the remand order dated 14-9-95 passed by the Board of Revenue and as such this case must be again remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh in the light of the direc­tions contained in the earlier order of the Board. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned Courts below are quite just and proper which must be maintained as the findings recorded by the learned Courts-below are based upon proper appreciation of the records on file.
(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contemions raised bv the learned Counsel for the parties and has also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the records, it is crystal clear that the learned lower appellate Court has properly analysed, dis­cussed and considered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case in correct perspective of law and has recorded a clear and categorical finding on 29-12-1997 which is quite in consonance with the provisions of law. From a bare perusal of the record, it is manifestly clear that the suit land belonged to Smt. Asghari Begum. Con­sidering the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case, 1 am of the firm view that after the death of Smt. Asghari Begum, the disputed holding shall be covered under Section 174 of the UPZA and LR Act. There is no any justification to remand this case again as per the conten­tion raised of by the learned Counsel for the appellant.;