- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a revision under Section 333 of UPZA and LR Act, preferred against the judgment and decree, dated July 17, 1951, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of an order dated 22-1-95, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit under Section 229b of UPZA and LR Act against the defendant Surat and others for declaration over the disputed land as detailed at the fool of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial dismissed the aforesaid suit on 22-1-85. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Addi tional Commissioner allowed the appeal on July 17, 1991 and set aside the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the land in question was acquired by Smt. Haxari Dulariya w/o Fundi as ex-Zamindar and she never inherited the land in question from her husband and after her death succession will be governed under Section 174 of UPZA and LR Act. That the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is against the evidence on record, perverse er roneous and also against the provisions of law that the learned Lower Appellate Court has failed to consider the material and relevant facts of the instant case as to the death of Shyam Lal and Smt. Haxari Dulariya, hence it has committed manifest error of law, that the learned Additional Commissioner Has failed to reverse find ing of the learned trial Court as such the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside, it was further contended that the suit as well as appeal preferred by the defendant respondents was not main tainable as it was barred by res-judicata. In reply the learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the aforesaid judg ment and decree passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is quite just and proper as such it must be maintained as it has been passed in consonance with the provision of law. I have carefully and considered the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file.
(3.) HAVING closely examined the mat ter in question I find that the learned Addi tional Commissioner has properly ex amined the relevant and material facts and the circumstances of the instant case in true perspective of law and has recorded clear and categorical finding to the effect that under the provision of Section 171 of UPZA and LR Act, Shyam Lal is entitled to be heir a real brother of the deceased brother Fundi in preference to his married daughter. I entirely agree with the con clusion drawn by him in the aforesaid order dated July 17, 1991. No manifest error of law, fact or jurisdiction has been committed by him warranting any in ference by this Court in this second revision. To my mind the aforesaid im pugned order dated July 17, 1991 passed by the learned Lower Revisional Court is sus tainable well founded and wholly war ranted in law as such it must be main tained. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. The revisionist has utterly failed to establish his claims as to the title and possession over the disputed holding.;