- (1.) The present writ petition arises out of five suits filed under Sections 229B and 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the petitioner who claims himself as adopted son of Chokhey for declaration and in alternative for possession. Various plots as mentioned and described in the plaints were subject-matter of the five suits. The suits were instituted mainly on the pleas that Smt. Phoolmati widow of Chokhey Lal had taken him in adoption as her son on 30.3.1958 and a registered deed of adoption was also excluded by her on 9.4.1958. Adoption ceremony was performed on 30.3.1958 and in that ceremony the natural father namely Visheshwar Prasad actually gave the petitioner in adoption to Smt. Phoolmati in the presence of friends, relatives and other villagers. The suits were contested by the respondents herein by denying the adoption of the petitioner by Smt. Phoolmati.
(2.) The parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. All the suits were dismissed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 31.10.1972. In appeal by the petitioner being Appeal Nos. 34, 38, 35, 36 and 37 of 1972, the first appellate court namely Additional Commissioner, Bareilly allowed all the appeals and it consequently decreed the suits by the judgment and order dated 18.4.1977. The matter was carried further in second appeals being Second Appeal Nos. 194 to 198 by the defendant respondents before the Board of Revenue under Section 100 of C.P.C. All those appeals were allowed by the common judgment dated 18.12.1989 impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) Sri H. O. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of the Board of Revenue, submits that the Board of Revenue committed illegality in allowing the appeals without framing any substantial questions of law as required under Section 100(4) of C.P.C. Secondly, the only point mooted in the appeals was whether the petitioner has been validly adopted by Smt. Phoolmati or not. The said point was decided by the first appellate court on the basis of appraisal of evidence on record and the finding of the appellate court could not have been interfered with by the Board of Revenue in second appeal. Thirdly, there is voluminous evidence on record in the shape of registered adoption deed, undisputed Will of Smt. Phoolmati, oral evidence of Pandit who performed the necessary adoption ceremony, the evidence of natural father of the petitioner and other witnesses who were present on the occasion of adoption ceremony to prove the adoption in question. But the Board of Revenue has failed to consider the oral evidence led by the petitioner and as such the judgment of the Board of Revenue, is vitiated.;