DEVI DIN Vs. MULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 26-10-1994, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1991 passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act).

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Devi Din and Bhawani instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act, impleading Smt. Mula Devi and others as defendants for declara­tion of their bhumadhri rights over the land in suit as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after com­pleting the requisite trial decreed the aforesaid suit on 28-9-1991. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned lower appellate Court, through its judgment and order dated 26-10-1994 has allowed the aforesaid appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. 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 record, on file. A close examination of the record reveals that the learned trial Court has not properly analysed and considered the evidence on record and has recorded an erroneous and perverse finding against the defendant respondent. On the other hand the learned lower appellate Court has properly analysed, discussed and con­sidered the material facts and circumstan­ces as well as evidence, on record of the instant case and has given a clear and categorical finding to the effect that Smt.Mula had not remarried and the learned trial Court committed an error of law in drawing the conclusion otherwise in respect of remarriage of Smt. Mula. From a bare perusal of the record, it is abundant­ly clear that the factum of remarriage of Smt. Mula is not established. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to substantiate the fact that Smt. Mula had remarried and resides, elsewhere. The learned lower ap­pellate Court has correctly examined the points at issue in correct perspective of law. I entirely agree with the conclusion and inference, drawn by the learned lower appellate Court. There is nothing on the record, to prove the claims of the plaintiff-appellate over the land in suit. They have utterly failed to establish their claim over the disputed land. The learned lower ap­pellate Court has rightly allowed the ap­peal preferred by the defendant-respon­dent. I find no illegality or material ir­regularity on the face of the record so as to warrant any interference by this Court, at this second appellate stage. Moreover, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and as such, the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dis­missed. It is also worthwhile to mention here that no substantial question of law has been framed on behalf of the appel­lant, in the memorandum of the second appeal. No force is found in the conten­tions, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the case laws, referenced to by him arealso of no avail to the appellant.