AMIRA Vs. HABIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 33 1 (3 ) of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 2-9-86 passed by the learned Addl. Commis sioner, Moradabad Division, moradabad arising out of a judgment and order dated May 27. 1983 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff one Habib instituted a suit under Section 229b/209 of UPZA and LR Act, imp leading Meera and others as defendant with the prayer that the posses sion over the disputed holding be delivered to the plaintiff-respondent after dispossessing the defendant-appellant from (he same. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial, has dismissed the aforesaid suit on May 27, 1983. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Addl. Commis sioner has allowed the appeal on Septem ber 26, 1986. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) THE learned lower appellate Court has miserably failed to reverse the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and has erroneously recorded the finding based on conjectures and surmises. It has not properly examined the matter in question in correct perspective of law. THE learned lower appellate Court has not properly exercised his jurisdiction vested in him by law. It has not addressed itself to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. THE plaintiff-respondent has utterly failed to substantiate his claims as to the title and possession over the disputed holding. No cogent and positive evidence has been ad duced to establish his right interest and possession over the suit land. THE learned Addl. Commissioner has allowed the ap peal preferred by the respondent Habib on flimsy and unsustainable grounds while the learned trial Court has closely ex amined the matter in question in con sonance with the provisions of law.