RASHEET Vs. ZARINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revision petition preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25-3-998 passed by the learned Additional Com­missioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28-1-1997 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act. Since the parties and the controversy involved in these two revision petitions are the same as such these are being disposed of by its common judgment and order. The revision petition No. 3 of 1998-99/Moradabad shall be the leading case.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt. Zarina in­stituted the suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act with the prayer that she may be declared Bhumidhar over the disputed land as detaied at the fool of the plaint as a legal heir of Ujira and Smt. Asghari. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial dismissed the suits on 28-1-1997. Aggrieved by this order, two appeals were preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has al­lowed the aforesaid appeals on 25-3-1998 and set aside the aforesaid judgment and decrees passed by the learned trial Court. Hence these two revision petitions.

(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. On a perusal of the records, it is crys­tal clear that the learned lower appellate Court has illegally overlooked the aforesaid judgment and decree passed in suit No. 108 of 1982 under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act on merits in consonance with the provisions of law at the hearing the parties concerned. To my mind, the aforesaid judgment and decree pussed in the aforesaid suit shall operate as res-judicata. The aforesaid impugned judgment and decree passed by' the learned lower appellate Court suffers from mis-reading of evidence and perver­sity in appraisal of evidence on record. A manifest error of law has been committed by the learned lower appellate Court which has not properly examined the relevant aspects of the facts and cir­cumstances of the instant case and has passed a cursory and slip-shod judgment and order dated 25-3-1998.