- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. These are two connected second appeals under Section 331 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 4-7-1996, in Appeal No. 138/44 of 1994-95/lalitpur as well as dated 24-7-1996, passed in appeal No. 25/43 of 1994-95/lalitpur dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and decree dated 5-8-1995/11-9-1995, passed by the learned Trial Court in two suit Nos. 135/1990-91 and 261/1989-90, under Section 229-B/209 of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to instant second appeals are that the plaintiff, Pyare Lal instituted a suit No. 135 of 1990-91, under Section 229-B/209 of the Act, against the defendants, before the learned Trial Court for expunction of the name of the defendant, Tulli alias Galli from khata No. 77, inter alia pleading that the name of Tulli alias Galli is recorded fraudulently and illegally in the revenue records. Tulli alias Galli also instituted a suit No. 261 of 1989-90, under Section 229-B/209 of the Act, before the learned Trial Court, against the defendants, for declaration of his rights and title as bhumidhar with cultivatory possession over his 1/2 share in the land in dispute, inter-alia pleading that Ram Pyari has fraudulently executed a sale-deed in favour of the defendant. On notice, the State and Pyare Lal etc. contested the suit, denying the allegations and inter-alia pleading that since Tulli alias Galli got his name fraudulently recorded, he has no share in the land in dispute. The learned Trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, vide its judgment and decree, dated 5-8-1995, decreed the suit of Pyare Lal etc. and dismissed the suit of Tulli alias Galli. Tulli being aggrieved by the same, went up in two appeals before the learned Additional Commissioner who has dismissed both of them, vide his judgment and decree dated 24-7-1996 and therefore, it is against these judgments and decrees, passed by the learned Courts below that Tulli alias Galli has now come up in these two second appeals before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. Assailing the impugned judgments and decrees, passed by the learned Courts below, the bone of contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, inter-alia, in a nut-shell, are firstly, that since the name of the appellant has been continuing since before the abolition of zamindari, there is every presumption of correctness of such entries; secondly, that since the findings recorded by the learned Courts below have not been arrived at after due and proper appreciation of evidence, on record, in correct perspective of law, the same are erroneous, in law, wrongly holding that Ramju did not die heirless; thirdly, that since the sale-deed executed by Ram Pyari in favour of Pyare Lal etc. is void ab-initio, the learned Court below has grossly erred in holding otherwise; fourthly, that since the appellant has perfected his rights and title by prescription of law, the findings, recorded otherwise, are against law and facts, on record and therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees, passed by the learned Courts below being illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction, cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain and these second appeals, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, very richly deserve to be allowed in toto. The learned Counsel for the respondents, in reply, urged that since the findings of fact, recorded by the learned Courts below, in respect of title of Pyare Lal etc. , have been arrived at after due and proper appreciation of evidence, on record, in correct perspective of law which cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be interfered with by this Court at this second appellate stage, these second appeals, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, very richly deserve dismissal outright. I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced, before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record, on file. On the pleadings of the parties concerned, following substantial questions of law emerge out for decision by this Court : "1. Whether or not the findings, recorded by the learned Courts below, have been arrived at after due and proper appreciation of evidence, on record, in correct perspective of law? 2. Whether or not the case of the appellant is barred by the principles of estoppel and acquisance and if so, its effect?'' As a matter of fact, both the learned Courts below have rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that since his name is recorded in the khatauni 1359-F without any order of the competent authority, no benefit could be derived by him on the basis of the same. The learned Trial Court after due and proper evaluation of evidence, both oral as well as documentary, on record, also held that Tulli has bitterly failed to explain as to how his name was recorded in the khatauni 1359-F in ziman-2. Since no document, showing the very basis of acquisition of rights and title on 1/2 share of the land in dispute, has been produced by Tulli, his claim for the same falls to the ground. So far as oral evidence, on record, is concerned, it has emphatically observed that from the same, it could rather very safely be inferred that Tulli is not fully acquainted with the facts, as well. Concurring with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, the learned Additional Commissioner, after dealing with the matter in question, at depth, through and through, in an analytical and logical manner, has rather very rightly held that the claim of Pyare Lal etc. is proved to the hilt from the evidence, on record. His findings have also been arrived at after due and proper appreciation of evidence, on record, in correct perspective of law and as such, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant who has bitterly failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reasons. It is also the settled principle of law that the findings of fact, recorded by the two learned Courts below, duly arrived at after due and proper appreciation of evidence, on record, cannot be disturbed at the second appellate stage and therefore, entirely agreeing with the findings, recorded by the learned Courts below, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as evidence, on record, am of the considered view that no interference with the same by this Court is called for at this second appellate stage and as such, these second appeals having no substance, very richly deserve dismissal outright.
(3.) IN view of the above, the instant second appeals, being devoid of merits, are accordingly, dismissed and the judgments and decrees, passed by the learned Courts below, are hereby confirmed and maintained. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts, concerned. This order shall govern second appeal Nos. 159 and 160 of 1995-96/lalitpur. Appeal dismissed. .;