S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THESE are two second appeals preferred against the judgment and order dated March 27, 1987 passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of a judgment and decree dated September 17, 1986 passed in a suit in­stituted under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Since the facts and the law points, are similar in these two second ap­peals as such the same are being decided by this common judgment. The second ap­peal No. 105 shall be the leading case. During the pendency of the second appeal the defendant- appellant Sml. Akhtari Begum died. Secondly her heirs/legal rep­resentative Mohd. Mustafa & others have been substituted.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent Murari Singh instituted a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. for declaring him Bhumidhar with4 transferable rights over the disputed land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned Trial Court after completing the requisite Trial decreed the aforesaid suit on September 17, 1986. Ag­grieved by this order the two first appeals were preferred. The learned Lower Appel­late Court by means of its judgment and order dated March 27, 1987 dismissed the aforesaid appeals. Hence these second ap­peals. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records on file. The learned Counsel for the respon­dents raised a preliminary question as to the maintainability of the aforesaid two second appeals on the ground that no sub­stantial question has been formulated in the memo of the aforesaid second appeals as such these second appeals are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It was further urged that no substantial question of law is involved in these second appeals. In the circumstances, these second appeals must be dismissed, in view of the provision contained in Section 100, C.P.C. Further, on the point of merits of the instant case, for the appellant, it was contended that on the allegation, made in the plaint, no case is made out of adverse possession, that the learned Trial Court has not discussed the evidence of the parties and has wrongly interpreted provision of law, that it is not the case of adverse possession but the learned Trial Court has wrongly decided the suit upon the plea of adverse posses­sion while it was permissive one, that the judgment and order, passed by the learned Court below is against the facts and evidence, on record, as such, these aforesaid impugned order must be set aside. In support of his contention, he has cited the case laws reported in 1982 AWC 319; AIR 1986 SC 106; 1990 RD 426: AIR 1990 SC 553. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted, that the second ap­peal is liable to be dismissed, as not main­tainable, that the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned Court below are quite just proper and sustainable as such these second appeals be set aside, that the possession of the plaintiff respondent is established from the evidence, on record, while no valid and cogent evidence have been adduced by the appellant to substantiate his possession over the dis­puted holding, that the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be upset at this second ap­pellate stage, in support of his contentions he has cited case law reported in 1993 RD (Hindi) 9, AIR. 1953 Alld. 439.
(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the records reveals that the learned Trial Court has properly and ex­haustively analysed discussed and con­sidered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case and has recorded clear and categorical finding, to the fact that the plaintiff-respondent Murari Singh is the Bhumidhar with trans­ferable rights over the disputed holding. The learned Lower Appellate Court has also properly examined the material points at issue, in correct perspective of law and has rightly upheld the aforesaid order, passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the first appeal.;