BAI Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by Smt. Bai widow of Late Chedi Lalagainst the judgment and decree dated 4-8-92 passed by learned Ad­ditional Commissioner Jhansi in Appeal No. 155 of 1991 arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act. By the impugned order the learned Addi­tional Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Bai instituted a suit for decla­ration that she was sole bhumidhar of the land in question. She stated the Chhedi Lal was the original tenant of the land ; that on his death his son Kali Charan got the land ; that Kali Charan was unmarried and died during his minority ; that the plaintiff being the mother of Kali Charan is entitled to succeed and that the name of Smt. Nir­mala has been wrongly entered in revenue records. Smt. Nirmala contested the suit denying the rights and title of the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit. On ap­peal, learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Hence the present second appeal.

(3.) A perusal of the record reveals that there is no dispute on the point that Chedi Lal was the original tenant and on his death the property devolved on Kali Charan. The question for determination is whether Smt. Nirmala being the wife/widow of Kali Charan is entitled to succeed the property or whether she has no right and the plaintiff Smt. Bai being the mother of Kali Charan and wife of Chedi Lalis entitled to succeed the property. The learned Additional Commissioner has considered the matter in detail and has recorded a finding of fact that Smt. Nir­mala being the wife/widow of Kali Charan is entitled to succeed to the property. He i'.as come to the findings that after the deaihofKali Charan Smt. Nirmala did not remarry and still is widow of Kali Charan. This finding of fact recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner- is based on a full and proper appreciation of evidence on record and cannot be called to be incor­rect and perverse in any manner and hence it is not liable to be disturbed in second appeal. No question of law is involved in the present second appeal.