KAMTA Vs. BACHU RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by Kamta and two others against the judgment and decree dated 19-4-2000 passed by learned Addi­tional Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 10-5-99 passed by the trial Court and declared the plaintiffs to be bhumidhars of the plot Nos. 340, 779, 780/2 and decreed the suit.

(2.) BRIEFLY facts of the case are that Bachu Raj Singh and others instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act on the ground that they were bhumidhars of the land in suit on account of being in possession from before. the date of vesting. They claimed to have acquired rights of bhumidhars with transferable rights by operation of law. The suit was contested by Kamta and others. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Additional Com­missioner passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) A perusal of the record reveals that in 1356F the name of Bachu Raj Singh was entered. In 1359 Fasli also his name was entered. Bachha Raj Singh was recorded as Sirdar in the year 1361 Fasli. Bachu Raj Singh was recorded as Sirdar in the year 1361 Fasli. Lekhpal appeared in the wit­ness box and stated that in 1403 Fasli wheat had been sown in plot No. 340. The learned Additional Commissioner after taking the entire evidence on record into considera­tion found that in view of the entries in 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli the plaintiff be­came Sirdar and acquired bhumidhari rights by operation of law on the introduc­tion of Act No. VIII of 1977. The learned Additional Commissioner rightly passed a decree in favour of Bachu Raj Singh. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Addition­al Commissioner. No substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal. The findings recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner is based on full and proper appreciation of evidence on record and is not liable to be disturbed.