Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) A suit under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by the petitioners. In the said suit the respondent No. 5 Ram Devi and Brijbhan Singh were defendants. Om Prakash respondent No. 4 was subsequently impleaded as a defendant on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed by Ram Devi. The case of the petitioners was that Ram Naresh Singh and Indra Bhan Singh and Devi Dayal the husband of respondent No. 5 and Brijbhan were brothers and descendants of a common ancestor and the property in dispute was a joint acquisition and the petitioners were co-sharers. It was also alleged that Ram Devi after the death of Devi Dayal had remarried Brijbhan Singh and consequently even if the disputed land was sole tenancy of Devi Dayal the petitioners being brothers of Devi Dayal were on the remarriage of Ram Devi entitled to inherit the land along with Brijbhan Singh and were as such co-sharers. The suit was contested by the respondent No. 4 Om Prakash. The remarriage of Ram Devi with Brijbhan Singh was denied and it was alleged that the remarriage was void as Brijbhan Singh had already a wife living at the time of alleged remarriage. The Trial Court found that remarriage was not proved and therefore Ram Devi inherited the share of her husband and consequently was entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of Om Prakash. It was held that the land in dispute was the sole tenancy of Devi Dayal and the case of the petitioners that it was a joint acquisition was not accepted. With these findings the suit was dismissed. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners. The Additional Commissioner by judgment and decree dated 31.3.1984 allowed the appeal. On the question of remarriage, the Additional Commissioner found that Brijbhan Singh had already a wife living at the time of alleged remarriage and consequently the alleged remarriage as void. The lower appellate Court has however recorded a finding that the land in dispute was the joint acquisition of all the parties and consequently that the name of Devi Dayal was recorded in a representative capacity and, therefore, the petitioners were co-sharers of the property in dispute. In recording this finding the lower appellate Court relied upon the oral evidence including the statement of Sukhai. Against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner two appeals were filed. One by the petitioners and the other by Om Prakash. The Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal of Om Prakash and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. The Board of Revenue affirmed the finding of the Courts below on the question of remarriage of Ram Devi. However, the Board of Revenue set aside the judgment of the lower appellate Court It was found by the Board of Revenue that the land in dispute was the sole acquisition of Devi Dayal and it was not a joint acquisition, therefore, Ram Devi had inherited the share of Devi Dayal, which she, sold to Om Prakash.
(2.) The petitioners Counsel submitted that the Board of revenue has not framed any substantial question of law and erred in interfering with finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of dated 10.11.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35795 of 1991 (Thakur Ram Chandra Ji Mahraj and others v. Board of Revenue and others) in which it has been held that the Board of Revenue can allow a second appeal only on substantial question of law framed by it. In the present case no substantial questions of law were framed by the Board of Revenue. For this reason the writ petition is liable to succeed. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 13.1.1992 is quashed. The case is sent back to the Board of Revenue for a fresh decision after framing substantial question of law.
(3.) Counsel for the parties agree that the case is an old one and it may be disposed of within a time bound period. In the facts and circumstances the Board of Revenue shall try to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it. Petition allowed.;