SURJEET KUMAR Vs. HAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20-11-96 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly in Appeal No. 91/1995 arising out of a suit No. 10/90-91 under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Har Prasad instituted a suit for declaration that he was bhumidhar of the land in question. He alleged that he continued to be in possession from July 1974 and had matured rights by being in adverse possession for over 16 years. It was stated that although the Lekhpal did not enter his name in Khasras, he continued to be in actual possession. It was further stated that the defendants sold the land to the defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 without any title. The defendants contested the suit denying the right and title of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the land in question had been given to the plaintiff on Batai for 3/4 years about sometimes before 8/10 years and that he became dishonest and started asserting his rights. The trial Court after framing issues gave both parties full opportunity of adducing evidence and of being heard. On a detailed discussion of the material on record it found that the plaintiff had proved his adverse possession over half portion of plot No. 312 area 2.95 acres and has matured his rights. It decreed the suit accordingly. On appeal, the learned Additional Commissioner confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal.

(3.) FROM a perusal of the record it is obvious that the defendants themselves admitted that they had given the land on Batai to the plaintiff sometimes 8/10 years before. They did not adduce any evidence to show that the plaintiff left his possession thereafter; although the name of the plaintiff is not recorded in revenue papers, he has filed a number of irrigation slips and receipts which proves his possession. The trial Court on a detailed discussion of the material on record has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his possession over the land in suit for over 12 years and has established his rights over the same. The learned Additional Commissioner has taken the material on record into consideration and expressed an agreement with the view of the trial Court. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff had been in possession over the land in question for over 12 years is based on a consideration of the evidence no record and is not liable to be characterised as incorrect or perverse and hence, it cannot be interfered with in second appeal.