S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 331 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act has been filed by Mohar Singh (since deceased and substituted by Badam Singh and others) against the judgment and decree, dated 12-7-1991, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in appeal No. 126/83 of 1988-89, arising out of the judgment and decree, dated 31-3-1989 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-BoftheAct.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise 10 the present second appeal are that Mohar Singh and three others instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act, impleading Phunda and others as defendants for declaration that they were bhumidhars with transferable rights of the land, in suit. They alleged that they were bhumidhar with transferable rights of plot No. 1897/1 area 8-18-0 situate in village Bamhaurisar, Tehsil Talbehat district Lalitpur and Phun­da was illegally recorded in Ziman-9. they further pleaded that they had no knowledge about this entry. The defen­dants contested the suit inter-alia on the ground that it was not maintainable. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trail and giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by this order, Phunda preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner has al­lowed the appeal and set aside the inv fugned judgment and decree dated 31-3-989, passed by the learned trial Court. It is against this order that the present second appeal has been filed before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the appellant, it was contended that the learned lower appel­late Court has committed an error of lawin taking the view that the suit as brought against Phunda without impleading the persons, who were recorded as the main-tenants of the plot No. 1897/1, was not maintainable; that even if they were com­mitted from being arrayed as defendants, the suit would proceed against Phunda (since deceased) and the view taken by the learned trial Court was legally correct and as such the instant second appeal deserves to be allowed and the aforesaid impugned order liable to be set aside. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent sub­mitted that in Khatauni 1359F, plot No. 1897/1 is recorded in the names of Pheran, Bishun, Chuni Lal and Nirbhay and plot No. 1897/2 is recorded in the name of Damru Singh. He further contended that in Khatauni 1370-72F, plot No. 1897/1 is recorded in the names of the sons of Damru Singh. He also referred to Khatauni 1366-68F in which the plot No. 1897/1 is recorded in the names of Pheran and others. According to him, the aforesaid suit could not be brought against the persons who was recorded in Ziman-9, without impleading the persons whose names were recorded in the main column and the view taken by the learned Addi­tional Commissioner was perfectly jus­tified and as such the present second ap­peal deserves to be dismissed.
(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. From a bare perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that plot No. 1897/1 and 1897/2 were recorded in the names of Pheran and the others in Khatauni 1359F and their names were recorded in the Khatauni 1366-68F and 1370-72F. The name of Phunda happens to be recorded in Ziman-9 over this plot. Mohar Singh and others who did not happen to be recorded anywhere, brought a suit for expunction of the name of Phunda who was recorded in Ziman-9. The suit could not proceed without impleading the persons who were recorded in the main column. The learned Additional Commissioner considered the material on record carefully and found that the suit, as brought by Mohar Singh, impleading Phunda and formal parties alone, as defendants, was not main­tainable. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the suit could be instituted even without impleading Pheran and others as defendants is not tenable and sustainable in law and has rightly been reversed by the Court of first appeal. After carefully examining the material on record, I agree with the view expressed by the learned Additional Commissioner and find no reason to interfere with the same at this second appellatestage. No manifest error of fact, lawor jurisdiction has been committed by him, in rendering the aforesaid impugned order dated 12-7-1991.;