CHANDRAWATI Vs. OMWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act, preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 22-4-97, arising out of a judgment and decree, dated 22-8-1996, passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Smt. Chandrawati and Smt. Dayawati instituted a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA & LR Act, with the prayer that the defendant No. 8, Banwari has executed a registered sale deed on 3-3-1987, in respect of the dis­puted land, as detailed at the foot of the plaint and the plaintiffs are in possession over the same as bhumidhar, with trans­ferable rights along with defendants 2 to 7 and as such, the name of the plaintiffs be ordered to be recorded as bhumidhar, with transferable rights, along with the defen­dant Nos. 2 to 7 and the name of the defendant No. 1/respondenl No.l, Smt. Omwati be expunged. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, has decreed the aforesaid suit on 22-8-1996. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the aforesaid appeal and set aside the order, dated 22-8-1996 and decree, dated 23-8-1996. 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. On going through the records, it is manifestly clear that the registered sale deed, executed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, has been duly proved by the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe. Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 have also admitted the possession of the plaintiffs-appellants over the suit plots in their written state­ments, filed by the learned trial Court. A bare perusal of the record also reveals that the vendor, Banwari had instituted a case in the civil Court for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed, executed on 10-10-1986, in favour of the defendant- respondent, Smt. Omwati. In mutation case, Smt. Omwati v. Banwari Lal, he has mentioned in his statement that the sale deed, ex­ecuted, in favour of Smt. Omwati is fake and forged and his signature does not exist there on . The learned trial Court has properly and exhaustively analysed, discussed and con­sidered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case, in correct perspective of law and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the sale deed, executed in favour of Smt. Omwati, defendant-respondent is not genuine and lawful, while the sale deed, dated 3.3.1987, executed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, is genuine and law­ful. The points, at issue in the instant case have been properly examined by the learned trial Court. I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion and in­ference, drawn by the learned trial Court, in the aforesaid order, dated 22-8-1996.