- (1.) RAM Janam Singh, Member. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23-9-94 raised by learned Additional Commissioner, Mecrut arising out of a case under Section 176 of the UPZA & LR act.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Briefly the facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit under Section 176 of the UPZA & LR Act for partition claiming their share to be 1/3 in the holding, the defendants contested the suit denying the claim of the plaintiff-respondents. The trial Court after evaluat ing the evidence on record decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Defendant filed an appeal before the learned Additional Commis sioner which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 23-9- 94. Against which they have filed the present revision. The learned trial Court wrote a well reasoned order and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/3 share and 2/3 share belonged to the defendants. The plea set up by the defendants, before the trial Court was that the plaintiffs were entitled only to 1\2 share which was not believed by the Courts be The concurrent findings by the Court below to the effects that the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/3 share is based on appreciation of evidence on record and cannot be called to be incorrect or per verse. No illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned orders. 1 sec no jurisdietional error in the orders of the Courts below which is based on sound reasonings.
(3.) IN the result, the revision has no force and is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed. .;