S.P.1ANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and order dated 9-7-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of an order dated 10-5-1994 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZAand LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF the relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Babu Ram instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act with the prayer that he be declared bhumidhar with transferable rights over the land in suit as detailed in para 1 of the plaint on the basis of the sale deed executed in his favour by the tenure-holder, Dharampal. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial dismissed thcsuit on 10-5-1994. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned lower appellate Court by means of its order dated 9-7-1996 has allowed this appeal. 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 considered the oral and documentary evidence and illegally al­lowed the appeal which is liable to be set aside; that in the circumstances the case be remanded to the learned lower appellate Court for decision afresh on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence on record as the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court are perverse er­roneous and not supported by evidence on record. In reply the learned Counsel of the respondent submitted that the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned lower appellate Court is quite just and proper which must be maintained as the same has been passed after considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(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 a closcexamination of the record, I find that the learned lower appellate Court has properly and thoroughly analysed dis­cussed and considered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case in correct perspective of law. 1 entirely agree with the conclusion drawn by it as a bare perusal of the records clearly reveals that the defendant-appellant is not proved to be the son of the deceased, Ram Chandra. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly recorded the finding that the heir/son of the deceased Ram Chandra is Dharampal who has executed the sale-deed in favour of the Respondent No. 1, Babu Ram who has been found bhumidhar with transferable rights over the disputed land. The learned trial Court has not con­sidered the relevant and material evidence on record in true perspective of law. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court is quite erroneous perverse and un­justified and as such are liable to be set aside.;