Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P.N. Misra appearing for the petitioner and Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha appearing for the contesting respondents.
(2.) The plaintiff, petitioner filed a suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming herself to be a co-bhumidhar entitled to 3/4th share. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 2.7.1982 decreed the suit. Two appeals filed by defendant, respondent were consolidated and dismissed by Additional Commissioner by a common judgment dated 27.11.1993. Thereafter, they preferred two second appeals before Board of Revenue which have been allowed vide common judgment dated 9.2.1994 which has been impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) The main arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is l that Board of Revenue decided the second ' appeals without framing any substantial question of law for decision. It has been further alleged that under the provision section 100 C.P.C. read with sub-section 4 of section 331 and section 341 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Second appeals can be heard and decided only on substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission. Reliance in support of contention has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon. Apex Court, Kshitesh Chandra Purakrit v. Santosh Kumar Purakrit and another, 1997 (5) SCC 438, Sheel Chandra v. Prakash Chandra, 1998 (6) SCC 683 and B. Basavraj v. M. Sadique Ali, 2000 (Suppl.) RD 188.;