S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 (4)of the. UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 29-11-1999 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out ofthe judgment and decree dated 28-4 1999 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case-are that the plaintiff, Smt. Bhagwati, widow of Harbans instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defen­dant, Babu Ram and others impleading the Gaon Sabha concerned and the state of U.P. as defendants with the prayer that she be declared bhumidhar with transferable rights over the land in suit in place of the deceased Harbans. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial decreed the aforesaid suit on 28-4-1999. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has allowed the appeal on 29-11-1999. Hence, this second appeal. 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 decree and judgment passed by the learned lower appellate Court is grossly illegal and irregular as it has rnis-construcd and wrongly inter­preted the evidence no record ; that without controverting its finding the learned Additional Commissioner has il­legally reversed the finding of the learned trial Court ; that the learned lower appel­late Court has wrongly observed that there is no evidence to show that the appellant's remarriage with Harbans while the learned trial Court has observed that the evidence adduced by the appellant before it proved the fact that the appellant Smt. Bhagwati remarried with Harbans and later on remained his widow ; that the learned lower appellate Court has not property considered the evidence on record and has illegally allowed the appeal in favour of the contesting defendant-respondent ; that the learned Additional Commissioner has erred in law in replying upon the finding recorded in proceedings under Section 34 and 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act while these proceedings arc summary in nat ure and are not binding in a regularsuil; ihat the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court are based on surmises and conjec­tures and as such the same be set aside. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the case laws reported in 1996 RD (87) 569 (HC) AIR 1986 SC 500 and 20001 RD (92) 166 (HC). In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid Harbans died in the year 1986 and as such the alleged marriage with the deceased is not possible in 1983 and that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is quite just and proper which be maintained.
(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel or the parlies and have also gone through the relevant record on file. On a close scrutiny of the record it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court has properly and exhaustively analysed considered and discussed the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case and after a proper appraisal of evidence on record has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that ihe plaintiff-appellant, Smt. Bhagwati is widow of the deceased, Harbans. It has examined all the relevant points at issue in correct perspective of law while the learned Additional Commissioner has misread and mis- appraised the evidence on record. The material and relevant facts and evidence on record have also not been examined by him in true perspective of law. On a close examination of the record, it is manifestly clear that the defendant-respondents have failed to substantiate the fact as to how was the name of the plaintiff-appellant, Smt. Bhagwati recorded as widow of the deceased Har­bans in the electoral rolls of 1983 and 1988. The defendant- respondents have utterly failed to establish their title, rights and interest over the dispute land after adduc­ing convincing and cogent evidence in support of it. 'Hie conclusion and inference drawn by the learned lower appellate Court are not cogent and sound in law. It has not reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court by recording a plausible and convincing reasoning. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that the defendant-respondents, Nathu Singh and Govind Singh have accepted Smt. Bhagwati as widow of the deceased, Harbans in their affidavits. The learned Counsel for the respondent has failed to disprove the fact as to the remarriage of Smt. Bhagwati with thedeceased Harbans.;