Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) A suit under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against the petitioners and other respondents. The plaintiff relied upon a sale deed dated 26.9.1946 said to have been executed by Vasudeo, father of petitioner No. 1, and Raghu Raj, father of petitioner No. 2. The Trial Court found the sale deed to be not proved. The suit was however partly decreed in respect of certain plots. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi by judgment and decree dated 16.9.1995. Against the said decree, a second appeal was filed by the plaintiff. The Board of Revenue by impugned order and decree dated 16.4.2001 allowed the appeal. The Board of Revenue found that the sale deed executed in the year 1946 relied upon by the plaintiff was proved and the presumption under sections 68 and 90-A of the Evidence Act was applicable to it.
(2.) I have heard Shri R.K. Tiwari Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ramsheel Sharma Counsel for plaintiff-respondent.
(3.) The petitioner's Counsel has raised two contentions. Firstly, that no substantial questions of law were framed by the Board of Revenue and secondly, that Board of Revenue has interfered with the finding of fact in holing that the sale deed were proved without discussing any evidence on the record. The contentions of the Counsel for the petitioner appear to have force. Section 341 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, provides that Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to proceedings under the Z.A. and L.R. Act. It therefore applies to the second appeals in the Board of Revenue. Substantial questions of law, therefore, were required to be framed by the Board of Revenue, which it has not done. On this ground itself the order of the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside. That apart the Board of Revenue has found that the sale deed to be proved drawing presumption under sections 68 and 90-A of the Indian Evidence Act. According to the petitioner's Counsel the said document was the basis of the suit and in any case as the defendant had denied the sale deed, it was necessary for the Board of Revenue to have considered the evidence on the record on the point before upsetting the finding recorded by the Courts below. It has also been found by the Board of Revenue that it was proved on the basis of the evidence that there was a private partition between the parties. There is nothing in the order of the Board of Revenue however to show that it has considered the evidence on record for recording these findings.For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 16.4.2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Board of Revenue to be decided afresh in accordance with law. Petition Allowed.;