BAIJNATH Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5-8-91 passed by learned Additional Commis­sioner, Allahabad in Appeal No. 48 of 89-90 district Fatehpur arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZAand LR Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Baijnath instituted a lawsuit for declaration that he is bhumidhar of the land in question and that the name of Om Prakash is wrongly recorded in the revenue papers. The defen­dants contested the suit on various grounds. It was stated that the plea set up by the plaintiff was not correct as he did not disclose the name of his ancestors and did not submit a pedigree ; that Ram Saran son of Ramadhin has executed a sale-deed in respect of the land in question on 3-9-68 in favour of Shyam Behari ; that the plaintiff did not file any suit during the life time of Ram Saran and that the name of Om Prakash son of Shyam Behari was correctly recorded. It was also alleged that the present suit was barred by Section 49 of UPCH Act The trial Court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit. The learned Additional Commissioner upheld the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Hence the present second appeal.

(3.) THE plaintiff could not substantiate his version that Ramadhin has given the land in suit to him. The learned trial Court con­sidered the matter in great detail and found that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. The learned Additional Commissioner too, discussed the matter and agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court. The findings on this point is not liable to be interfered with in second appeal. Apart from this, the sale-deed executed by Ram Saran in favour of Shyam Behari remains in tact and has not been cancelled by any Court of law. It is also clear that the village had gone under consolidation operation and the plaintiff did not raise any objection before the consolida­tion authorities. The learned Additional Commissioner rightly held the suit to be barred under Section49of the UPCH Act.