GAJRAM Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Sec. 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, preferred against the judgment and decree, dated Nov. 6, 1953 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of a judgment and decree, dated 1.2.1993/3.2.1993, passed by the learned trial court in a suit under Sec. 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) Brief and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi instituted a suit under Sec. 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, against the defendants Gajram and others, with the prayer that she be declared a bhumidhar in possession, with transferable rights, over the disputed land, as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial court, after completing the requisite trial has dismissed the aforesaid suit on 1.2.1993. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree, on 6.8.1993. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, on file. For the appellant, it was contended that the judgment and decree, passed by the learned appellate court, is against the facts and law of the case. That the Will, dated 14.7.1981 was not proved by the marginal witnesses, hence the learned Additional Commissioner has committed manifest error of law, that Smt. Shanti Devi was not related to Smt. Laxmi Devi. Hence her claim is quite fake and wrong. That Smt. Laxmi Devi cannot inherit the property of Chhotey Lal under Sec. 171 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act hence the claim of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 was wrong and illegal, that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was barred by Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act, as she is not in possession over the disputed property. That the learned Additional Commissioner has failed to give proper finding and has not applied his judicial mind and passed sketchy order, which is no order in the eye of law, that the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is perverse, erroneous, illegal and contrary to the provision of law, hence it is liable to be set aside. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment and decree, passed by the learned lower appellate court, is quite just and proper which must' be maintained, as it has passed the aforesaid order after proper consideration of the facts and evidence, on record.