Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. V. K. S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. R. S. Maurya, learned Counsel for tine Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that he has no instructions from his client to argue the matter and as such, he cannot advance any submissions in rebuttal to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. This writ petition pertains to the year 1984 and is quite old. The record reveals that the parties are litigating since 1970. Under these circumstances, the case is being decided finally with the assistance of the Standing Counsel as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending.
(2.) THE instant writ petition arises out of the proceedings initiated by the Petitioners -Plaintiffs by filing a suit for declaring them as Sirdars and Defendants -Respondents not to be declared as bhumid -hars over the disputed plots. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Zamindar, namely, Arjun Singh has leased out a plot by means of dictating document, which has been scribed by one Jayanti Prasad on 6.10.1947 in favour of Plaintiff -Petitioner (Surendra Singh) and permission for construction of Kothari was also given to him. Further, he also used the well for irrigation of his agricultural fields. Subsequently, another lease deed was executed after Medhai Singh became Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and Ram Chandra, S/o Anandi Lal, the Village Pat -wari on 18.9.1948 in favour of Ram Chandra, S/o Anandi Lal (sunar) and Din Dayal Jatav (tailor). During life time, no proceedings were initiated and after death of Arjun Singh in the year 1961, a dispute has arisen with regard to the possession of the property in question and as such, as stated above, a Suit was filed, which was contested by Ram Chandra/opposite party No. 6 and the same was dismissed, against which an appeal was filed which was decreed. In the decree, it has specifically been held that a patta executed by the Zamindar in favour of the Petitioners which was scribed by Jayanti Prasad and signatures of his father have also been verified by his son, is a genuine one and as such the findings of the Trial Court were reversed, whereby the same was held to be a fictitious document. Further, the Appellate Court held that the grant of subsequent patta in favour of Defendants -Respondents is invalid though registered on the ground of superimposition as they have got no rights. Further, it has been held by the First Appellate Court that the finding of the Trial Court, with regard to possession of the Petitioners over the disputed plots, is erroneous. Being aggrieved, Second Appeal was filed and the Board of Revenue interfered with the findings of fact and reversed the findings of fact so recorded and further, disbelieved the statements of Jayanti Prasad dated 30.1.1971, scriber of the document and Tej Singh, S/o Arjun Singh who had verified the signatures of Arjun Singh, which were recorded by the Trial Court are not admissible under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act as there is material contradiction in the aforesaid two statements with regard to the execution of deed dated 6.10.1947.
(3.) BEING aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that it is not open for the Second Appellate Authority to interfere with the findings of fact, as substantial question of law can only be answered by the Second Appellate Authority. It has further been stated that the statements of Jayanti Prasad and Tej Singh have wrongly been misinterpreted while allowing the appeal insofar as Jayanti Prasad, who is 'Scriber' of the document, proved that the document was written by him at the dictation of Arjun Singh sole Zamindar, but the same has not been signed before him, whereas his son Tej Singh, while proving the aforesaid document verified and proved the signatures of his father. Therefore, the document has been proved on the basis of statements and accordingly, a specific finding has been recorded by the First Appellate Court in this regard. Thus, it cannot be said that the statements are contrary to each other and as such, the findings so recorded by the Second Appellate Authority are erroneous and contrary to the material on record.;