- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a second appeal preferred against the judg ment and decree dated 25-9-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of the judgment and order dated 21-2-1995 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 176 of UPZA & LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Mahendra Singh and others instituted a suit under Section 176oftheupza& LR Act with the prayer that 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs in the disputed holding be partitioned and pos session of the same be also delivered to the plaintiffs over the disputed holding as detailed at the foot of the plaint. During the proceedings of the case, the learned trial Court by means of its order dated 23-8-1993 approved the lots of the parties concerned prepared on the basis of mutual consent. Later on, an application was moved on behalf of the defendant-appel lant, Vishesh Kumar son of Genda Singh deceased to set aside the aforesaid ex pane order dated 23-8-1993. The leatned trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on 21-2-1995. Aggrieved by this order, a first appeal was preferred. The learned lower appellate Court by means of its order dated 25-9-1996 has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 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 trial Court ac cepted the qurras without any notice to the appellant and as such it has-committed manifest error of law ; that no proper opportunity was given to the appellant to file any objection against the quarras prepared by the Lekhpal concerned; that the qurras prepared by the Lekhpal was against the provisions of the UPZA& LR Act and Rules ; that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are erroneous and perverse and as such the same is liable to be set aside. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondents sub mitted that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal nor has it been framed in the memo of this second appeal by the appellant and as such this second appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 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. From a bare perusal of the record, it is manifestly clear that the learned trial Court has rightly approved the lots con cerned on 23-8-1993 and the application for setting aside this order has been rightly rejected on 21-2-1995. The learned lower appellate Court has properly analysed, dis cussed and considered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the in stant case. No illegality or material ir regularity has been committed by it in pass ing the aforesaid impugned order dated 25-9-1996. The appellant has miserably failed to establish his claim by adducing cogent, posi tive and conclusive evidence in support of the same. There is nothing on the record to show that the aforesaid qurras have not been prepared as per the provisions of the UPZA&lr act and Rules.
(3.) NO force is found in the conten tions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. To my mind, the aforesaid im pugned judgment and order passed by the learned lower appellate Court is sus tainable, well founded and wholly war ranted in law. I find force in the conten tions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Having examined the matter in question carefully, I find that no sub stantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Moreover, no such ques tion has been framed in the memo of (his second appeal by the appellant and as such this second appeal is found to be not main tainable. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, 1 come to the conclusion that this second appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and the aforesaid impugned judgment and order passed by the learned lower appellate Court is liable to be maintained.;