GIRDHARI LAL - (1.) THIS second appeal is preferred against the order of learned Additional Commis­sioner, dated 4-10-85 in which Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal and suit of Sunahri Lal present appellant has been dismissed.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the file of the Courts below. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has rightly passed the decree declar­ing the share as well as the respective qur­ras of the parties. It has also been argued that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is arbitrary and he has passed his order without applying his mind to the relevant provisions and material on record and the observation of the lower appellate Court that claim of the plaintiff-appellant is for correction of map and for delivery of possession is wholly meson and LR Act, preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated August 29, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of judgment and decree dated 20-12-96 and 6-1-97 respectively, passed by the learned trial Court. 2. Brief and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff Akhlar S/o Maqbool Shah instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the U'PZA and LR Act, -with the prayer that he be declared Bhumidhar with trans­ferable rights along with defendant No. 1 Phool Shah over the disputed land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial has decreed the aforesaid suit on 20-12-96. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Ad­ditional Commissioner by means of his judgment and order, dated August 2.9, 1997, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records on file. For the appellant it was contended that the orders of the both the Courts below are erroneous and bad in the eye of law and as such are liable to be set aside, that the learned Courts below have not considered the facts and circumstances of the instant case and have Decided the case against the appellant, as the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 49 of CH Act, that no reasonable opportunity was af­forded to the appellant of being heard and adducing evidence in support of his claims, as such the case be remanded for decision afresh to the learned trial Court. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid impugned or­ders passed by the learned Courts below are quite just and proper, which must be maintained.
(3.) 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. On a close scrutiny of the records it is crystal clear that the defendant/appellant and plaintiff respondent Akhtar are real brothers and as such the plaintiff/respon­dent has 1/2 share over the disputed land. The learned trial Court has properly analysed, discussed and considered the material and relevant facts and cir­cumstances of the instant case and has right­ly decreed the aforesaid suit on 20-12-96. The learned lower appellate Court has also examined the points at issue in correct perspective of law and has correctly dis­missed the appeal. From a bare perusal of the records it is manifestly clear that the defendant/appellant has miserably failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence so as to prove his claim to the effect that the plaintiff/respondent Akhtar is not his real brother. As such the aforesaid impugned orders are sustainable, well founded and wholly warranted in law.;