RAJ NARAIN Vs. LUXMAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is plaintiffs second appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 13-6-1989 passed by Sri P.C. Soni, Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27-5-1986 passed by Sri Prabhakar Dubey, Assistant Collector Ist Class, Ballia in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The land in dispute is plot No. 488/1 area 77 decimal situate in Village Nagwa, Tehsil and District Ballia.

(2.) THAT the plaintiff filed suit for declaration under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on the ground that his ancestors Smt. Kishuni daughter of Gur Dayal Pathak purchased the land in dispute by two separate sale-deeds dated 26-12-1947 and 12-8-1948 executed by ancestors of defending III set namely Mahendra Pathak etc. and on that basic she continued in possession over the land in dispute and thereafter his son Luxman Tewari and thereafter Nar Singh Tewari was tenant and in possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiff have a pedigree in the plaint according to which Smt. Kishuni had two sons namely Luxman Tewari and Ram Swaroop Tewari. According to the plaintiff's case in between Luxman Tewari and Ram Swaroop Tewari, there was a compromise, according to which it was agreed that Ram Swaroop Tewari or his descendants will have no right in land of village Nagwa. Ram Swaroop Tewari was given share in the land of village Maihuli. According to the plaintiff's case his ancestors planted grove on the land in dispute and remains in possession as grove holder. Later on by passage of time some trees were cut and other were dried away and the land in dispute became cultivable and the plaintiff's ancestors were in possession over the land in suit by the name of defendants Ist set was wrongly recorded over it. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of bhumidhari rights.

(3.) THAT the trial Court framed issues and on 27-5-1986 dismissed the suit. The trial Court also held that the defendant Ist set are neither bhumidhar nor in possession over the land in dispute. According to the findings of trial Court, defendant III set namely Mahender Pathak are in possession and are also bhumidhar of the disputed plots.