GAJRAJ Vs. GYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal referred against the judg­ment and order, 'ed 31-7-1995 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 29-6-1993 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents, Gyan and others instituted a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act with the prayer that the plaintiffs be declared bhumidhars with transferable rights in possession over the disputed plot No. 290/5 admeasuring 1.50 acres situate in Village Saja, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lalitpur and the defendant-appellant have no concern with the aforesaid dis­puted holding and the name of the defen­dant No. 3 who is fictitiously and fraudulently recorded in class 9, be expunged from the revenue papers. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial, has decreed the aforesaid suit on 29-6-1993. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Ad­ditional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 31-7-1995. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the relevant records on file. A close examination of the records reveals that the learned trial Court has properly analysed, discussed and considered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case in correct perspective of law. All the points at issue have been examined and the learned lower appellate Court has rightly dismissed the aforesaid appeal. Having scrutinised the matter in question, I find that no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the learned Court below in dismissing the case of the plaintiff-appellant (defendant-appellant as the entry in class 9 in the khatauni for 1366-1368F.in favour of the plaintiff-appellant (defendant-appellant has not been made as per the procedure prescribed by law. It is also noteworthy here that the plaintiff-appellant (defen­dant-appellant has utterly failed to substan­tiate his claim over the disputed holding by adducing cogent and canvassing evidence in support of his claim over the suit land. The learned Courts below have not committed any error of law warranting any interference by this Court in this second appeal. Further­more, no substantive question of law is involved in this second appeal and as such this second appeal deserves to be dis­missed.