S.P PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act, preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 22-4-97, arising out of a judgment and decree, dated 22-8-1996, passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Smt. Chandrawati and Smt. Dayawati instituted a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA & LR Act, with the prayer that the defendant No. 8, Banwari has executed a registered sale deed on 3-3-1987, in respect of the dis­puted land, as detailed at the foot of the plaint and the plaintiffs are in possession over the same as bhumidhar, with trans­ferable rights along with defendants 2 to 7 and as such, the name of the plaintiffs be ordered to be recorded as bhumidhar, with transferable rights, along with the defen­dant Nos. 2 to 7 and the name of the defendant No. 1/respondenl No.l, Smt. Omwati be expunged. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, has decreed the aforesaid suit on 22-8-1996. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the aforesaid appeal and set aside the order, dated 22-8-1996 and decree, dated 23-8-1996. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records, on file. For the appellant, it was contended that the learned lower appel­late Court has not recorded its own inde­pendent finding, in respect of the points at issue and has arbitrarily set aside the judg­ment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, by passing a sketchy judgment and order, without reversing the finding, recorded by the learned trial Court, on material points; that in mutation cases, the findings, recorded by the mutation Court, are not binding in regular suit of title but the learned lower appellate Court has er­roneously relied upon the findings recorded by the learned Court below in mutation case; that the sale-deed executed in favour of Smt. Omwati, defendant respondent has not been produced in original; that the sale deed, alleged to have been executed by the vendor, Banwari, in favour of Smt. Omwati, on 10-10-1986, filed in the mutation case, should have been summoned by Smt. Omwati, defen­dant-respondent along with the mutation case file, in support of her claim but no such application was moved by Smt. Om-wati for summoning the alleged sale-deed and as such, this sale deed could not be said to have been proved in accordance with law in as much as, the plaintiffs-appellant were not afforded any opportunity to verify and challenge the alleged thumb-impression/signature of the vendor, Banwari; that the aforesaid sale deed, dated 10-10-1986, was neither produced in original, before the trial Court or the first appellate Court nor was proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act; that on the contrary, the sale deed ex­ecuted in favour of the plaintiffs-appel­lants on 3-3-1987, has been proved by the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe; that the learned Additional Commis­sioner has solely relied upon the aforesaid alleged unproved sale deed dated 10-10-86; that the certified copy of the alleged sale deed, dated 10-10-86 was inadmissible in evidence, particularly when the original was available on the record of mutation case, concerned ; that the judgment and decree, passed by th&learned lower appel­late Court is illegal, perverse, erroneous and based on surmises and conjectures and as such, deserve to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case laws reported in 1997 ALJ 182 (SC) and 1979 AWC 687 (HC). The learned Coun­sel for the respondent urged that the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree, passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner is just, sustainable and proper which must be maintained. It was further submitted that the learned lower appellate Court has correctly examined the oral and documentary evidence and has found the sale deed, executed on 10-10-1986, genuine and legal. In support of his contentions, he has cited case laws, reported in 1996 ALR 121 (SC), 1997 ACJ 423 (HC), 1999 ALR 185 (SC) and 1997 RD 333 (HC).
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records, on file. On going through the records, it is manifestly clear that the registered sale deed, executed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, has been duly proved by the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe. Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 have also admitted the possession of the plaintiffs-appellants over the suit plots in their written state­ments, filed by the learned trial Court. A bare perusal of the record also reveals that the vendor, Banwari had instituted a case in the civil Court for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed, executed on 10-10-1986, in favour of the defendant- respondent, Smt. Omwati. In mutation case, Smt. Omwati v. Banwari Lal, he has mentioned in his statement that the sale deed, ex­ecuted, in favour of Smt. Omwati is fake and forged and his signature does not exist there on . The learned trial Court has properly and exhaustively analysed, discussed and con­sidered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case, in correct perspective of law and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the sale deed, executed in favour of Smt. Omwati, defendant-respondent is not genuine and lawful, while the sale deed, dated 3.3.1987, executed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, is genuine and law­ful. The points, at issue in the instant case have been properly examined by the learned trial Court. I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion and in­ference, drawn by the learned trial Court, in the aforesaid order, dated 22-8-1996.;