STATE Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29-2-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal No. 28/8 of 1995-96, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30-12-1995/8-1-1995 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Act before the learned trial Court for declaration of his rights on the basis of an alleged patta granted in favour of Gyasi (substituted by his heir, Dhani Ram after his death) by the Gaon Sabha, concerned. It was pleaded that the lease in question was legally granted in his favour by the Gaon Sabha concerned but no amaldaramad could be made in the revenue records and hence the cause of action arose. Defendants contested the suit denying the claim of plaintiff. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial, came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff respondent failed to substantiate his claim, he cannot get any relief and dismissed the suit in question. Aggrieved by this order, a first appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and allowed and the first appeal. It is against this order that the instant second appeal has been preferred before the Board.

(3.) I have carefully and closely considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned DGC (R) and the learned Counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the record makes it amply clear that the learned trial Court has decreed the suit in question after a full and proper appreciation of evidence on record. It appears that the plaintiff filed the instant suit for the declaration of his rights on the basis of his being in possession and cultivation over the land in suit and a patta being granted in favour of Gyasi, the father of the plaintiff, Dhani Ram by the Gaon Sabha concerned. The alleged patta has not been filed in original by the plaintiff. Instead, a photo-copy of the same has been filed. The land in dispute is recorded as banjar in the Khatauni 1393-98F. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Court of first instance came to the conclusion that since the land in dispute is recorded as banjar in the Khatauni 1393-98F, it is the property of the Gaon Sabha, concerned and no sufficient and plausible explanation has been furnished by the plaintiff as to why his name could not be recorded in the revenue papers on the basis of the alleged patta. It has further been observed by it that as per the Evidence Act, a photo-copy of the alleged patta is not admissible in evidence and the plaintiff has miserably failed to adduce any evidence in favour of his claim. On the other hand, the learned lower appellate Court has illegally reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the alleged patta has been proved without analysing, discussing and considering the evidence on record as well as the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case. The learned trial Court has very rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of its findings which have been arrived at after considering, discussing and analysing the entire evidence on record as well as the facts and circumstances of the instant case. I entirely agree with it. No manifest illegality or irregularity on the face of the record has been committed by it. On the contrary, the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court are perverse being based on surmises and conjectures. I do not find any force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim. To my mind, the suit of the plaintiff has been illegally decreed by the learned Court below and this second appeal deserves to be allowed.