S.P. Pandey, Member - (1.) This a plaintiffs second appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 24-4-89 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated 28-1 1-88 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
(2.) Brief and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Lalloo and Bhopal instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. with the prayer that the plaintiff No.1 Lalloo be declared bhumidhar with transferable rights over the ⅙ share and plaintiff No. 2 be declared bhumidhar with transferable rights over the ⅚ share of the disputed holding, as detailed at the foot of the plaint, as the names of the plaintiffs are continuously recorded in class IX of the khatauni and khasra since 1367 fasli. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, dismissed the aforesaid suit on 26-11-88. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred, the learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal too. Hence this second appeal.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records, on file. For the appellant, it was contended that the statement and the admission of the defendant/respondent Chandan Singh has been totally ignored by the learned Courts below, that the witnesses produced on behalf of the contesting defendant/respondents has also been ignored by the learned Courts below, that the plaintiff/appellant has fully established his possession over the disputed land for more than twenty eight years through revenue records and also through oral evidence, indicating the hostile continuous and adverse possession of the plaintiff/appellant over the suit land, that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on conjectures and surmises, that there is ample evidence to prove appellant's possession over the disputed holding and the plaintiff/appellant has acquired sirdari/bhumidhari rights over the disputed holding, that the learned trial Court has erred grossly in disbelieving the documentary evidence, adduced by the plaintiff/appellant and recorded an erroneous finding, that the learned Additional Commissioner has also not properly considered the evidence on record and the extract of khatauni for the year of 1366 fasli, filed before the first appellate Court, has not been considered, while it is a significant document with regard to possession of the plaintiff/appellant over the disputed holding, that the plaintiff/appellant has fully established the fact that his possession has been as per the procedure prescribed by law, over the aforesaid suit land. In support of his contention, he has cited the case law reported in 1982 RJ page 59, 1986 ACJ page 359, 1989 AWC page 124, 1994 RD page 7, 1964 RD page 237, 1994 RJ page 308. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid impugned order dated 24-4-1989 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is just, proper and sustainable, as such, it must be maintained, that the adverse possession of the plaintiff/appellant has not been continuous hostile and as per the procedure prescribed by law. In support of his contention, he has cited the case laws reported in RD 1982 page 1, RD 1980 page 190, RD 1981 page 112, RD 1983 page 24, RD 1994 page 156, RD 1969 (SC) page 295 to 297, RD 1990 page 214 (HC), RD 1985 page 397 RD 1996 page 39 and 165 (HC), RD 1992 page 75, RJ 1988 page 89 to 91 RJ 1987 page 105 and 214 to 217, AIR 1959 SC 57, AIR 1966 SC 1718, AIR 1963 SC 302, AIR 1960 SC 135, AIR 1981 SC 1981, AIR 1978 Patna 1378, RD 1994 page 388, CRC 1998 page 123 (SC), CRC 1998 page 241 (SC), RD 1994 page 113 but see page 117, RD 1975 page 278; RD 1979 page 294, RD 1995 page 277 and AIR 1964 SC 1254.;