S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 26-10-1994, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1991 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 plaintiffs, Devi Din and Bhawani instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act, impleading Smt. Mula Devi and others as defendants for declara­tion of their bhumadhri rights over the land in suit as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after com­pleting the requisite trial decreed the aforesaid suit on 28-9-1991. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned lower appellate Court, through its judgment and order dated 26-10-1994 has allowed the aforesaid appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parlies and have also perused the record on file. For the appellant, the pedigree of the family has been reproduced as under: Dullcy Harvansh Binde Devi Din Bhawani Jhagroo-Mula (W) Further, it was contended that the learned trial Court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, has correctly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff- appellant assigning cogent reasons, therefor but the learned lower appellate Court has erred in allow­ing the appeal and passing an order of reversal, without reversing the findings, recorded by the learned trial Court and as such the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is un­sustainable in law; that the compromise decree dated 19-9-1986, passed in suit No. 49/86 by the civil Court is binding between the parties that the plaintiff-appellants have fully proved by adducing the oral and documentary evidence to the effect that the defendant respondent No. 1, Smt. Mula had remarried with one Raja Ram; that the order passed in mutation proceedings are not binding, in a regular suit and this fact has been ignored by the learned lower appellate Court which has not properly considered the material on record and 'has illegally allowed the ap­peal; that it has mis-read, mis-construed and mis-interpreted the oral and documentary evidence on record and as such wrong and unwarranted interference has been drawn by it; that it has also-passed the aforesaid impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures and has not applied its judicial mind to the evidence on record and as such the aforesaid im­pugned order is liable to be set ailde. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case laws, reported in 1985 RD 93 (HC) and 249 (HC.LB), 1977 RD 36 (BR), 1984 RD (H) 9 (HC), 1984 RD 11 (HC) (Hindi Section) and 1984 RD 308 (BR). In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Jower appellate Court is quite just and proper and in con­sonance with the provisions of law; that it has properly examined the matter in ques­tion and has recorded a finding quite in accordance with the facts and evidence, on record; that the aforesaid pedigrees is ad­mitted and as such, the aforesaid im­pugned order passed by the learned Addi­tional Commissioner be maintained as there is no infirmity in the aforesaid im­pugned order.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record, on file. A close examination of the record reveals that the learned trial Court has not properly analysed and considered the evidence on record and has recorded an erroneous and perverse finding against the defendant respondent. On the other hand the learned lower appellate Court has properly analysed, discussed and con­sidered the material facts and circumstan­ces as well as evidence, on record of the instant case and has given a clear and categorical finding to the effect that Smt.Mula had not remarried and the learned trial Court committed an error of law in drawing the conclusion otherwise in respect of remarriage of Smt. Mula. From a bare perusal of the record, it is abundant­ly clear that the factum of remarriage of Smt. Mula is not established. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to substantiate the fact that Smt. Mula had remarried and resides, elsewhere. The learned lower ap­pellate Court has correctly examined the points at issue in correct perspective of law. I entirely agree with the conclusion and inference, drawn by the learned lower appellate Court. There is nothing on the record, to prove the claims of the plaintiff-appellate over the land in suit. They have utterly failed to establish their claim over the disputed land. The learned lower ap­pellate Court has rightly allowed the ap­peal preferred by the defendant-respon­dent. I find no illegality or material ir­regularity on the face of the record so as to warrant any interference by this Court, at this second appellate stage. Moreover, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and as such, the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dis­missed. It is also worthwhile to mention here that no substantial question of law has been framed on behalf of the appel­lant, in the memorandum of the second appeal. No force is found in the conten­tions, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the case laws, referenced to by him arealso of no avail to the appellant.;