- (1.) HIMANSHU Kumar A suit under Section 229-B, Z. A. Act was filed by Sulkhan Singh and others on the ground that the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 were entered as Bhumidhar with transferable rights on the disputed land, that this land was purchased by the plaintiffs by virtue of sale-deed by Hira Singh before consolidation, that the mutation orders were issued during the consolidation and parwana amaldaramad was issued but by some mistake the mutation was not effected and that the opposite parties 1 to 4 by this fraudulent claim to be legal heirs of Hira Singh got their names mutated on the disputed land in their favour. The plaintiffs filed a true copy of the sale-deed. The SDO, Mainpuri, relied upon the true copy of the sale-deed filed and on the certain copy of the mutation order dated 28-12- 1971 of the C. O. decreed the suit on 30-9-1988. Against this order first appeal was filed by Chhote Singh and others in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Admn), Agra which was dismissed by his order dated 19-1-1995.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant on 18-8-2006. Despite due notice and repeated calls no one appeared on behalf of opposite parties. Perused the relevant papers on file. The opposite parties case in brief was that the consolidation officer passed mutation order on the basis of sale-deed, whereas prior to that the ACO by his order dated 15-9-1971 passed mutation order on the land in question in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 in place of Hira Singh. The learned Additional Commissioner has given his finding in para 7 of the impugned order that the order dated 28-12-1971 of the Consolidation Officer had overriding effect on the earlier order dated 15-9- 1971 of the ACO. The following substantial questions of law are inherent in the second appeal: - (i) Is the certified copy of the sale-deed admissible in evidence in the trial Court? The circumstances under which the original sale-deed could not be filed have been analyzed in para 8 of the impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 19-1-1995. Due cognizance has been taken by the learned Court below on the certified copy of the sale-deed. I see no bar in law for reading certified copy as evidence. (ii) Has the sale-deed in question has been proved as per law? I agree with the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner in para 8 of the impugned order that the sale-deed has been proved as per law by statement of Ram Naresh and Jagannath. The delay after execution of the sale-deed and before initiating mutation proceedings does not in any way adversely effect the proving of the sale-deed per se. In view of the above I find no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Therefore, the second appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned orders dated 19-1-1995 and 30-9-1988 passed by the Courts below are upheld and sustained. Let the records be returned within a week and this Courts file be consigned to the record room. Appeal dismissed. .;