VISHESH KUMAR Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 25-9-1996, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of the judgment and order dated 21-2-1995 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 176ofUPZ;A&LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Mahendra Singh and others instituted a suit under Section 176 of the UP ZA and LR Act with the prayer that 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs in the disputed holding be partitioned and possession of the same be also delivered to the plaintiffs over the disputed holding as detailed at the foot of the plaint. During the proceedings of the case, the learned trial Court by means of its order dated 23-8-1993 approved the lots of the parties concerned prepared on the basis of mutual consent. Later on, an application was moved on behalf of the defendant-appel­lant, Vishesh Kumar son of Genda Singh, deceased to set aside the aforesaid ex-pane order dated 23-8-1993. The learned trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on 21-2-1995. Aggrieved by this order, a first appeal was preferred. The learned lower appellate Court by means of its order dated 25-9-1996 has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the records, it is manifestly clear that the learned trial Court has rightly approved the lots con­cerned on 23-8-1993 and the application for setting aside this order has been rightly rejected on 21-2-1995. The learned lower appellate Court has properly analysed, dis­cussed and Considered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case. No illegality or material ir­regularity has been committed by it in passing the aforesaid impugned order dated 25-9-1996. The appellant has miserably failed to establish his claim by adducing cogent, positive and conclusive evidence in support of the same. There is nothing on the record to show that the aforesaid quarras have not been prepared as per the provisions of the UPZA &. LR Actand Rules.