M.H. Beg, J. - (1.) The Petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari after calling for the records of second appeal No. 99 (z) of 1960 -61 in the case of Vijai Shankar Rai v/s. Vishwa Nath Rai, from the Board of Revenue, to quash the orders of the Board of Revenue dt. 31 -5 -1961 dismissing his second appeal from the decision of an Additional Commissioner, as well as the order of the Board of Revenue dated 28 -12 -1962, rejecting a review application filed by the Petitioner. He also prayed for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 6 -2 -1961 confirming the decree of the Judicial Officer, Ghazipur, dated 30 -11 -1960, by which the suit of the Plaintiff opposite party No. 1 Vishwa Nath Rai was decreed.
(2.) The Plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of his rights as bhumidhar and in the alternative, for possession against the Defendant Petitioner. After a very detailed consideration of every piece of evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that Vishwa Nath Rai, the Plaintiff opposite party, was the adopted son of Udai Bhan Rai who had also executed a registered deed of adoption in his favour on 11 -2 -1944. The Petitioner too claimed to be the adopted son of Udai Bhan Rai and had produced an unregistered deed of adoption dated 8 -2 -1944 together with an admission of Udai Bhan Rai in his favour. But after weighing the evidence of both sides, the Petitioner's claim was rejected and the Plaintiff opposite party's claim was accepted by the trial court. The Additional Commissioner had confirmed these findings. One of the grounds of decision was that a Munsif's judgment dated 16 -2 -1959 inter partes determined the validity of the adoption of Vishva Nath Rai and the invalidity of the adoption of Vijai Shankar Rai Petitioner. The Board of Revenue had rejected the Second appeal summarily and held that a pure question of fact was involved.
(3.) Udai Bhan Rai, who had evidently become displeased with the Petitioner after having adopted him, being alive until 1954, the Petitioner's possession over the land in dispute until 1954 could no) give any cause of action to Vishva Nath Rai. The suit of Vishwa Nath Rai was Held to be within time. The question of Limitation, which was raised, was also correctly decided.;