Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition arises out of a suit instituted under Section 229 -B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by one Anand Singh (since deceased) now represented by Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, against the Petitioners.
(2.) THE suit was instituted for declaration that the sale -deed allegedly executed by him on 30th May, 1974 registered on 31st May, 1974 in favour of the Petitioners is a void document as the said sale -deed was never executed by him. The suit was instituted on 16th June, 1988 after the expiry of more than 14 years from the date of execution of the sale -deed. The suit was contested by denying the plaint allegations on the pleas inter alia that in pursuance of the sale -deed in question the names of the Petitioners/purchasers were mutated in the revenue record on 20th March, 1975 and since then they are continuing in occupation of the disputed land. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed. The evidence documentary and oral was led and the suit was decided by the trial court in the first round. The appeal was preferred and ultimately second appeal was preferred by the Petitioners herein before the Board of Revenue earlier. It was urged by the Petitioners that one of the issues in the suit was as to whether the sale -deed in question bears the signature of the Anand Singh or not? An opportunity should be granted to prove the signature of Anand Singh on the disputed document by calling expert opinion. It appears that the plea was found favour with the Board of Revenue. The appeal was allowed by it by providing that an opportunity be afforded to file evidence to prove the disputed sale -deed. The matter was restored to the trial court. After remand, the suit has been decreed by all the three courts below, hence, the present writ petition. Shri S.C. Varma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that there has been no proper appreciation of evidence by the courts below. Therefore, the finding recorded by them is vitiated. Much emphasis was laid on the point that the Sub Registrar, who registered the sale -deed, was examined by the Petitioners. He deposed that he knew Anand Singh and verified signature of Anand Singh. The oral deposition of Sub Registrar (Rajeshwar Singh Pawar) has not been considered. Therefore, the finding recorded that the sale -deed was got executed and registered by impersonation, is incorrect and is vitiated. It was also submitted that the finding of possession recorded by the three authorities below is incorrect.
(3.) IN contra, Shri Siddharth Varma, appearing on behalf of the contesting Respondents submits that no case for interference in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out. The evidence has been appreciated by the Revenue Courts and on examination of the evidence, they have reached to a right conclusion. Submission that the statement of Rajeshwar Singh Pawar, Sub Registrar was not considered, is not correct.;