MOTI YADAV Vs. BHOLA YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

(2.) This second appeal has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 27.3.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, court no. 3, Mau in civil appeal no. 20 of 2001arising out of judgment and decree dated 19.4.2001 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Mau in original suit no. 155 of 1990.

(3.) Impugned judgment and orders have been assailed on the ground that courts below have erred in not considering the facts mentioned in the replication regarding title of the appellant, by which disclosure had been made as to acquirement of the property. It is stated that courts below have misdirected itself in holding that it was an admitted fact that well in Sahan on the land in dispute claimed by the appellant was not ancestral but the said property is said to have been purchased by the father of the appellant namely Sri Balli Yadav from one Ram Dahal Rai and as the lower appellate court has decided the case without determining the real points in issue, as such the impugned judgment and orders are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that it is established by evidence that partition had already taken place between the parties and they are residing in their portions separately.