S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THESE are two second appeals preferred against the judgment and decree dated December 30, 1989, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of First Appeals No. 240/22 and 275/53 of 1986-87 District Lalitpur arising out of a judgment and decree dated 23-6-87/13-7-87 passed in suit under Section 229B/209 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Since the facts and law points are similar in both/the second appeals as such these are being decided by the common judgment and order and the second appeal No. 54 of 1989-90 shall be the leading case file.
(2.) BRIEF and relevanl facts of the case arc that the plaintiff Ram Charan in­stituted a suit under Section 229B/209 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration, with the prayer that the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 Raghunandan be declared Bhumidhar with transferable rights in possession over the suit land and the defendant No. 2 Smt. Sahodara has no any possession, title or interest over the disputed land, as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial has ordered on 23-6-87 to the effect that the names of Raghunandan and Ram Charan s/o Saliq Ram, resident of Deogarh be expunged from the suit land situaied in village Deogarh, Pargana Talbaheta district Lalitpur and Smt. Sahodara d/o Murlidhar, w/o Laxmi Narain, r/o Parosiya, be entered with Ramesh Mohan s/o Sriram r/o Deogarh as Colenure holder over the aforesaid suit land. Apart from this the share of Smt. Sahodara d/o Murlidhar w/o Laxmi Narain and Ramesh Mohan s/o Sriram and others have been determined as 1/2 each over the disputed land on 13-6-87. Aggrieved by this order two First Appeals were preferred by one Ram Charan and others. The learned Ad­ditional Commissioner has allowed the aforesaid appeals and set aside the judg­ment and decree dated 23-6-87/13-7-87 passed by the learned trial Court. Hence these second appeals. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records on file. For the appellant the following pedegree in respect of the family of the parties was reproduced as below in order to understand the controversy between the parties in the instant case. Raja - joo 1 Saligram j Murlidhar an Smt.Sahod Ram Charan Raghunand (Daughter) S/o Laxmi Narain It was further contended that the learned Additional Commissioner had erred in law while passing an order of reversal by allowing the appeal without reversing finding recorded by the trial Court and omitting to consider the docu­ment as well as oral evidence adduced before the learned trial Court, that the sale-deed executed by Smt. Sahodara in favour of Ramesh Mohan s/o Sri Ram, is wholly legal and genuine and has been given effect to in the Revenue Records in October, 1983 that the suit land is sole acquisition of Murlidhar the father of Smt. Sahodara and after his death Smt. Sahodara became the owner in possession as successor over the disputed land, that from the perusal of the extract of Khatauni in respect of 1387-92F it is abundantly clear that the disputed land is recorded in the name of Ram Charan and Raghunandan s/o Saligram and Smt. Sahodara as Bhumidhar under the Hindu Law. Smt. Sahodara was legally entitled to inherit the property of Murlidhar the deceased (her Father) that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner suffers from misreading and non-consideration of material documentary and oral evidence on record, that the learned Lower Appellate Court has mis­interpreted law of succession with regard to the effect of the instant case as such the judgment and decree passed by it is liable to be set aside. In reply the learned Coun­sel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the aforesaid second appeal preferred by the appellant alleging that these second appeals are not maintainable as no sub-stantial question of law has been framed in the memo of second appeals as held in RD 1997 page 467 (HC Alld.) and RD 1999 page 180 (SC). It was further contended that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court these second appeals are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, that on merits also these second appeals have no force and are liable to be dismissed on the following grounds: (i) That the learned trial Court ig­nored the extract Khatauni for 1309F in which the name of Raja joo (Grant Father of both the branches) and the land in dis­pute are mentioned in this Khatauni that the learned trial Court also ignored the oral evidence adduced by both the parties, that the documentary evidence i.e. Khatauni for 1347F, 1356F, 1359F were not considered in which the names of Ram Charan is brother of Raghunandan and Sahodara were entered, that the learned trial Court has also misread and mis-inter­preted the Khewat of 1345F and 1348F in which Nanhi Bahu (Mother) is mentioned as guardian of Ram Charan and Raghunandan and Murlidhar was only Karta (Head) of the family and nor the guardian of Ramcharan and Raghunan­dan'minor sons of Saligram that the learned Additional Commissioner has ex­amined the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record and has rightly allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents one Ram Charan and others, that it has recorded the finding of fact about the pos­session in favour of respondent Ram Charan after properly discussing the oral evidence on record as such the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Commissioner be maintained.
(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 abundantly clear that in the memo of ap­peal no any substantial question of law has been framed as such I find much force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent to the main­tainability of the appeals as there is no any substantial question of law involved in this second appeals. In the circumstances the second appeal is not maintainable and in result is liable to be dismissed in view of the aforesaid case law RD 1999 page 180 (SC) and RD 1997 page 476 (HC) referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent.;