C.L.VERMA, j. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by Shri Krishna and others against the judgment and decree dated 29-7-95 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, in Appeal No. 46/311/163 of 1989-90/Banda arising out of suit No. 46 of 1987 under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner maintained the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The trial Court dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs. The learned Additional Commissioner did not rely on the Verg 9 entries made in favour of the plaintiff. He took note of the fact that the commencement of the entry did not take place according to rules and Form PA-10 does not appear to have been issued or served. He also found that continuous possession of over 12 years had not been proved. The learned Additional Commissioner has considered the entire material on record and found that the plaintiff has failed to prove his continuous possession for over statutory period in order to enable himself to get rights by prescription.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the parties. The learned Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No question of law is involved in the present second appeal which may call for any interference by this Court. The second appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;