Mr. Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16-1-1996 passed by the Board of Revenue.
(2.) Respondent No.2 filed suit for declaration of his right in respect of plot in dispute under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short referred to as the Act) on the allegation that he is son of Ram Chandra and is entitled to inherit his share. The petitioners contested the suit and it was denied that he is a son of Ram Chandra. He alleged that respondent No. 2 is son of Chandra Sen. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that he is son of Ram Chandra and dismissed the suit by judgment/order dated 11-10-1989. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against said order before the Commissioner of the Division concerned, The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal. On 7-6-90 Respondent No. 2 preferred second appeal against said order before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 16-1-1996 has reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and appellate Court. It recorded finding that plaintiff respondent No. 2 is son of Ram Chandra. His suit has been decreed.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Board of Revenue in second Appeal, has no jurisdiction to reassess the finding recorded by the Courts below. Is jurisdiction was limited as provided under Section 100 C.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that certain evidence were misinterpreted or not take into consideration by the Additional Commissioner and therefore, it was entitled to reassess the evidence and record its own finding. On perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the Board of Revenue itself assessed the evidence. It has taken into consideration the fact that certain recovery proceedings were taken against Ram Chandra and in that connection respondent No. 2 was sought to be arrested and if that be so, it respondent No. 2 is not his son why he should be arrested. It has relied upon the certain voter list. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in fact respondent was not arrested nor any proceedings were taken for his arrest. The documents produced by him was controverted and lastly, it is submitted that even if some proceedings were taken for recovery of amount that will not indicate that he was son of Ram Chandra particularly when the trial Court and appellate Court have taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence in this respect.;