- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a second appeal under Section 331 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13-11-90 passed by the learned Additional Commis sioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of the judgment and decree dated 20-5-1988 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229b/209 of the UPZA & LR Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY staled, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Krant Kumar in stituted a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA & LR Act with the prayer that he be declared bhumidhar with trans ferable rights over the disputed holding as detailed at the foot of the plaint and the name of the defendant No. 1 Gyasi be expugned from the revenue records. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial by means of its order dated 20-5-1988/21-5-1988 decreed the aforesaid suit. Aggrieved by this order, appeal was preferred. The learned Addi tional Commissioner has allowed the ap peal and set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. For the appellants, it was contended that the learned lower appel late Court has misread the evidence on record and has recorded a perverse and enoneous finding against the appellant ; that by adducing proper evidence in sup port of his claim the appellant has proved his claim as to the title and possession over the disputed holding ; that the appellant has been recorded bhumidhar over the disputed land and also recorded at present in the revenue records ; that the learned lower appellate Court has erred in law in holding that Gyasi father of the appellant Asha Ram, has not acquired the rights as Adhivasi, Sirdar or bhumidhar over the disputed land ; that the learned lower ap pellate Court has not reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court who has properly examined the facts and evidence on record and as such the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court be set aside. In support of his con tentions he has cited the case laws reported in AIR 1965 SC 54, AIR 1989 SC 204, AIR 1998 SC 471, 1996 RD 229 (SC ). In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that this second appeal is not maintainable as no substantial question of law has been framed in the memorandum of this second appeal. In support of his contention, he-has cited the case laws reported in 1982 RD 346 (HC); 1997 RD 467 (HC); AIR 1999 SC 864; 1999 RD 180 (SC); 1997 AWC 2126. Further, it was contended that the learned lower appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact as to the posses sion over the suit land; that the defendant appellants are not in possession over the disputed land; that the learned Additional Commissioner has properly and exhaus tively examined the mailer in question and has recorded a clear and categorical find ing which is sound in law. In support of his contentions, he has cited case laws reported in 1997 AWC 2126 (NQC), 1992 AWC112 (HC ). I have closely and carefully con sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the records, it is abundantly clear that the learned Addi tional Commissioner has exhaustively and properly analysed, considered and dis cussed the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case in correct perspective of law. In 1359f, the posses sion of the appellant is not proved and the defendant- appellants has miserably failed to substantiate their possession and title over the suit land by adducing plausible and cogent evidence in support of their claims. Moreover, a bare perusal of the records also reveals that in the ext. of khasra for 1359f in Col. 5, the possession of the defendant appellants has been entered over cross-marks which are in red ink. These entries appear to be fake and fabri cated and no right or possession accrues the defendant-appellants on the basis of these unlawful and illegal entries.
(3.) THE learned lower appellate Court has correctly examined the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has also properly examined the points at issue. From a perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that in the khatauni for 1356f and 1359f, Shiv Charan, the father of the ap pellant was recorded in class 6 (1) in pos session as Asami occupant and in 1359f, bhumidhari certificate was also issued and the mutation in respect of the aforesaid Shiv Charan is also mentioned herein. No illegality or material ir regularity has been committed by the learned lower appellate Court warranting any interference by this Court in this second appeal.;