SHEO AUTAR Vs. DEO KANYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. L. Verma, Member This second appeal has been filed by Sheo Autar against the judgment and decree dated 18-1-90 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi in Appeal No. 136/13 of 1986-87 district Banda arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.

(2.) BY the impugned order learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE plaintiff Sheo Autar claimed to have acquired rights on the basis of his adverse possession. According to him, his father's possession had started before the date of vesting. THEre is nothing on record to show that his father Jia Lal was ever recorded in any capacity during period. THE entry of plaintiff's father starts in 1373 Fasli in verg-9. THE plaintiff an enquiry slip showing that on 16-1-80 he had moved an application for mutation. THE plaintiff could not show that his father had acquired rights by prescription and had become tenure holder of the land in question. As the father of the plaintiff himself was not recorded as tenant of the land there was no question of seeking any mutation of his title. THE learned Additional Commissioner considered the material on record in detail and found that the plaintiff had failed to prove his continuous adverse possession forover 12 years and hence he could not acquire any right in the land in question. He also took note of the fact that unless the rights of Jia Lal had been recognised there was the question of moving any mutation application in his place. THE learned Additional Commissioner has based is conclusion on a proper consideration of the evidence on record and there is no ground to interfere in this second appeal.