S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 26-5-1997 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of the judgment and decree, dated 25-6-1996 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act).
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant, instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act the defendant-respondent, Maqsood Ali and others for declaration of his rights over the land in suit as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated 25-6-1996 dis­missed the suit of the plaintiff- appellant. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has upheld the aforesaid judg­ment and order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 26-5-1997. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the '.earned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the appellant, it was contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are against law and facts of the case; that the father of the respondents 1 and 2 in col­lusion with the consolidation authorities got their names recorded before the con­solidation proceedings but the possession of the land in dispute remained with the appellant; that the land in dispute was acquired by the father of the appellant alone and the father of he respondents 1 and 2 was never a co-tenant and as such his name was never recorded in the revenue records; that co-tenancy is proved by the extract of Khatauni relating to different years and the proceedings of the instant case are not barred by Section 49 of the UPCH Act and as such the case be remanded for retrial after hearing both the parties. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case laws reported in 1980 RD 300 and 1983 RD 215. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent sub­mitted that in the extract of Khatauni for the year 136IF, both the lathers of the appellant as well as respondents 1 and 2 were recorded and in the extract of Khatauni for 1362F only the father of the appellant is the sole tenant of the land in dispute; that in the extract of Khantauni for 1363F the father of the respondent is shown as the sole tenant of the land in suit; lhat no substantial question of law is in-voloved in this second appeal and as such this second appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed; that during the consolidation operations, the names of the respondents were recorded over the land in suit and as such the aforesaid impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below are quite just and proper and must be maintained. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case law reported in 1983 ALI 509.
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and relevant records on file. On a close ex­amination of the relevant records, it is abundantly clear that the learned trial Court has properly and thoroughly analysed, discussed and considered 'he relevant and material facts and cir­cumstances of the instant case and has recorded a clear and catagorical finding to the effect that the plainiff-appellani is not entitled to any relief and consequeo by, it has dismissed the suit of the plainuft ap­pellant. The learned lower appellate Court has also properly examined the relevant points at issue and has rightly upheld the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court and dis­missed the appeal on 26-5-1997.;