KARANVIR SINGH Vs. MADHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and decree dated 8 -9 -98 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of a judgment and decree dated 30 -5 -1997/31 -5 -1997 in suit under Section 229 -B of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Maranvir Singh alias Raja Bhaiya instituted a suit under Section 229 -B of the UPZA and LR Act, with the prayer that the name of the defendant -respondent, Smt. Madhuri Devi wife of Dhirendra Singh be expugned from the revenue papers on the basis of the sale deed dated 18 -1 - 1970 and the name of the plaintiff, Karanvir Singh be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights, over the disputed holding, detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court, by means of its order, dated 30 -5 -1997 decreed the aforesaid suit. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has al­lowed the aforesaid appeal and set aside the aforesaid order and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this second appeal.

(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. A bare perusal of the records reveals that the learned trial Court has not con­sidered the relevant and material facts .and circumstances of the instant case in true perspective of law. On the other hand, the learned lower appellate Court has proper­ly and exhaustively analysed, considered and discussed the material facts and evidence on record in correct perspective of law and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the aforesaid compromise dated 18 -3 -1997 is not genuine and consequently it has rightly set aside the judgment and decree dated 30 -5 -1997/31 -5 -1997 passed by the learned trial Court. On a close scrutiny of the records it is manifestly clear that all the points at issue have been properly ex­amined by the learned Additional Com­missioner. No illegality or material irregularity has been committed by him in allowing the aforesaid appeal through his Order Date 8 -9 -1998.