JANGL ETC. Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 (4) of the .UPZA & LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), preferred against the judg­ment and decree, dated 16-10-1995 and 27-12-1995 respectively in appeal No. 4/5 of 1990-91/Jalaun, arising out of the judg­ment and decree, dated 25-8-1990, passed by the learned trial Court, in suit No. 76 of 1989-90 under Section 229-B(4-F) of ihe Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the " plaintiffs, Jangi and three others instituted a suit under Section 229-B (4-F) of the Act against the defendants, Gaon Sabha and the state of U.P., for declaration of their rights over the land, in dispute, as detailed at the foot of the plaint, on the basis of their beingHarizans and possession over the land, in dispute, as their Abadi. The suit was contested by the Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P., denying the allegations and pleading that the land, in suit, is recorded as TALAB, a land under Section 132 of the Act and no rights can accrue to the plaintiffs, on the basis of their possession, on such land. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, dismissed the suit on 25-8-1990. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has concurred with the findings, recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order that this second appeal has been, preferred before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records, on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that the plaint ills filed a suit under Section 229-B/122-B (4-F) of the Act, on the basis of their being Horizon and possession over the land, in dispute. They filed a copy of the order dated 5-4-1977, passed by the learned Munsif, in a suit filed by the Gaon Sabha which was dismissed in default. The learned trial Court is of the view that this order is of no avail to the plaintiffs. It has further held that the alleged report of the Naib-tehsildar, dated 27-5-1989 is not ad­missible in evidence, as the signatures of the Naib-tehsildar arc illegible. In respect of possession of the plaintiffs, it came to the conclusion the the oral evidence of the witnesses, not supported by any documen­tary proof, cannot be relied upon. In respect of issue No. 2 which was to the effect whether the land in dispute is the property of the Gaon Sab has and rights can be conferred on the plaintiffs on the basis of their possession or not, the learned trial Court is of the opinion that since the land in dispute is recorded in Class-6 (1) of the Khatauni (submerged with water) belong­ing to the Gaon Sabha, no rights could accrue to the plaintiffs on such land as such it dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The learned Additional Commissioner, after thoroughly discussing the matter in question, has concurred with the findings, recorded by the learned trial Court. He has properly and exhaustively analysed, dis­cussed and considered the material and relevant facts, circumstances and evidence, on record of the instant case and has very rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The findings, recorded by the learned Courts below have been arrived at, "after due and proper appreciation of evidence on record, both oral and documentary and no error of fact, law or jurisdiction has been committed by them and as such, no interference with the same is called for in this second appeal. It has very correctly been held that no rights could accrue to the plaintiffs over the land coming under Section 132 of the Act. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal nor has any such ques­tion been framed in the memorandum of this appeal and as such, this second appeal having no force, deserves to be dismissed and the orders, passed by the learned Courts below, are liable to be sustained. No force is found in the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, nor is the case law, cited by him of any help to the appellants.