- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a second appeal under Section 33 1 of UPZA and LR Act, preferred against the judg ment and order dated March 31, 1997 passed by the learned Addl. Commis sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated 19 2- 96 and decree dated 1 1 -3-96 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 176 of UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that plaintiff Mohd. Ali Khan in stituted a suit under Section 176 of UPZA and LR Act, with the prayer that his 1/2 share over the disputed holding as detailed in para I of the plaint, be set apart and the possession of the same be delivered to him. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial has decreed the aforesaid suit on February 19, 1996. Ag grieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Addl. Commis sioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dis missed the appeal. Hence, this second ap peal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record on file. For the appellant it was contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is erroneously arbitrary mala fide in the eye of law and as such the same are liable to be set aside, that it has not considered the documentary and oral evidence on record and illegally declared the share of the plaintiff/defendant 1/2 to each, the learned lower appellate Court has not properly examined the facts and the circumstances of the case and has wrongly dismissed the appeal that the leaned Counsel. Below have committed manifest error of law as such the orders passed by them are liable to be set aside. (Sic) submitted that the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned lower appellate Court is quite just and proper which must be maintained that the learned trial Court has properly con sidered the documentary and oral evidence on record and has rightly decreed in the suit, that the learned Addi. Commis sioner has rightly upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court as such this second appeal be dismissed.
(3.) I have closely considered the con tentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On perusal of the records it is manifestly clear that the learned trial Court has properly discussed and considered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case and has rightly recorded clear and categorical finding of fact, that the plaintiff and contesting defendant have 1/2 share in the disputed holding. The learned lower appellate Court has also properly examined the points at issue in correct perspective of law and drawn plausible conclusion that judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is legal and sustainable. I find no any patent il legality or material irregularity committed in the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 31 -3-97 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner. The appellant utter ly failed to substantiate their claims as to the title of the disputed holding I entirely agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Additional Commissioner. To my mind the aforesaid im pugned order dated March 31, 1997, is sustainable, well founded and wholly war ranted in law as such it must be main tained. No force is found in the conten tions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Moreover, no substantial ques tion of law has been framed in the memo of the second appeal as such this second ap peal is not maintainable.;