S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal, preferred against the judgment and decree dated December 13, 1998, passed by the Learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of a judgment, dated 31 -1-1996 and decree dated 12-2-1996, passed by the learned Trial Court, in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the ease are that the plaintiffs Smt. Premwati and Vimla Devi instituted a suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, against the contesting defendant Ved Prakash, with the prayer that they be declared a Bhumidhar in possession, with trans­ferable rights, over the disputed land, as detailed at the foot of the plaint, that the defendant-respondent Ved Prakash has no any concern with the disputed land. The learned Trial Court, after completing the recjusite trial, has decreed the aforesaid suit on January 31, 1996. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree, passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence I his second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records, on file. For the appellant, it was urged that in order to understand the controversy be­tween the parties, the following pedegree is worth perusal:- Makkhan Lal Bindamal (died on 1949) Chandumal (died on 1948) C'handil'rn (died on l(l 1 RaghunathPrasad Jagdish Prasad Smt.Vidhyawati (diedon 1962) wil'e of Chandi Prasad Premawati (Appellants) Vimalwati (Appellants) 1945) It was further urged that the im­pugned order of the learned Lower Appel­late Court is perverse and against the evidence, on record, that it has not con­sidered the oral and documentary evidence on record and has not reversed the finding, recorded by the Learned Trial Court, that it is fully proved that the plain­tiffs-appellants are daughters and legal heirs of the deceased Chandi Prasad who is recorded a tenure holder. That after the death of the aforesaid Chandi Prasad, his widow Smt. Vidhyawati, the mother of the plaintiffs-appellants was recorded as tenure-holder, that the name of the con­testing respondent was wrongly recorded in the revenue papers, that the plaintiffs-appellants are in cultivator possession over the disputed land, that the suit of the plaintiffs was not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, and Section 34 of the U.P.L.R. Act, but the finding recorded by learned lower appellate Court is totally erroneous and perverse that the plaintiffs-appellants are daughters of the Smt. Vidyawati and as such, being the daughters, they are the legal heirs of the deceased Chandi Prasad, that the aforesaid impugned order is quite unjust and illegal and as such, it must be quashed. In support of his contentions, he ha srclied upon the case-laws, reported in R.D. 1963 page 268 (Full Bench H.C.). The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and as such, it must be dismissed, that the learned lower appel­late Court has considered the entire evidence, on record and has rightly recorded the clear and categorically find­ing that the father of the defendant-respondent has acquired the rights and interest of the Bhumidhar, with the trans­ferable rights, over the suited land, that the suit of the plaintiffs' was clearly barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, that the Learned Trial Court miserably failed to properly examine the points, at issue and wrongly decreed the plaintiffs suit, whereas the learned Additional Commis­sioner has properly and exhaustively ap­preciated the evidence, on record and has rightly allowed the appeal and as such, the aforesaid impugned order be maintained. In support of his contention, he has cited the case laws, reported in A.C.J. 1992 page 1 SO: A. We . 1993 Vol. II page 1238, A.R.C. 1993; Vol. II page 428 and A.I.R. 1997 Vol. 11 page 202.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records, on file. From a bare perusal of the records, it is a manifestly clear that the learned Lower Appellate Court has properly and exhaus­tively analysed, discussed and considered the relevant material aspects of the fact and circumstances of the instant case and has drawn a correct conclusion in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. It has properly examined the material points, at issue in­volved in the aforesaid impugned judg­ment and decree.;