S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 12-10-82 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30-12-78 passed by the trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z. A. & L.R. Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant fads of the case are that the plaintiff one Bale instituted a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaring him Bhumidhar and co-sirdar in possession over the 1/2 of the land in suit as detailed at the foot of the plaint. To appreciate the controversy be­tween the parties a short pedigree is being reproduced below :- Shivdan Ram Kumar Naipal Prayag Bale Jai Shree | Mangaru Shiv Acchat The trial Court, by means of its judg­ment and decree dated 30-12-78, has decreed the aforesaid suit. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner by means of his judgment and order dated 12-10-82 has upheld the aforesaid order dated 30-12-78 passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal ; hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant and have gone through the impugned judgments on file. None appeared on behalf of the respon­dents despite due notice and information.
(3.) FOR the appellant it was contended that the disputed land was self acquired property of Prayag, but the findings of the Courts below are apparently erroneous and illegal, that there was no continuity and identity of the holding in dispute as such the entry in the name of Ram Kumar over the same plots are have no relevancy for determination of the question of co­tenancy in the present case; t ha t the defendant-appellants were exclusively in pos­session over the disputed land since the time of their ancestor, Prayag, but the Courts below have failed to record any finding on the point of possession, that the Patta relied upon by the defendant appel­lants have been wrongly discarded by the Courts below in respect of the disputed holding, that the plaintiff was never in possession over the disputed holding as such, the plaintiffs claim is barred by Sec­tion 34 of the Specific Relief Act, that the Courts below have ignored the material, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendant-appellant and have drawn an erroneous and illegal conclusion and inference against the defendant-ap­pellants.;