NAGRIWALI Vs. JANAK DULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal, preferred against the judg­ment and decree, dated 29-10-1986, passed by the learned Additional Com­missioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of the judgment and decree, dated 1-10-1985/17-10-1985, passed by the learned trial Court, in a case under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act).

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that Smt. Janak Dulari instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defendant, Smt. Nagarewali, with the prayer that she be declared Bhumidhar, in possession, with transferable rights of the land, in suit, as detailed at 'he foot of the plaint and the name of the Defendant No.3, Smt. Nagarewili be expunged as she has no concern with the disputed land and her name is illegally recorded in Class-9 of the Khatauni of the disputed land. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, has decreed the aforesaid suit on 1-10-1985. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Ad­ditional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 29-10-86. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the relevant records, on file. A bare perusal of the record, abundantly reveals that the learned trial Court has properly and very exhaustively analysed, discussed and con­sidered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the Class-9 entry, recorded in favour of the appellant, over the land in suit, is not lawful and genuine and the continuous possession of the defendant-appellant is not established and as such the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. The learned lower appellate Court has also examined the points, at issue, in correct perspective oflaw and has drawn a correct conclusion to the effect that no inter­ference is called for with the order and decree, passed by the learned trial Court. I entirely agree with the conclusion drawn by it and find no illegality or material ir­regularity, on the face of the record, so as to warrant any interference by this Court, at this second appellate stage. Moreover, on a close examination of the records, I also find that neither any substantial ques­tion oflaw is involved in this second appeal nor has any such question been framed in its memorandum and as such, this second appeal is also liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable. Having closely examined the matter, in question, I find that the entry of Class-9 made, in favour of the defendant- appellant, is not established, to have been made in accordance with the procedure, prescribed by law and as such, no benefit can be derived by the appellant from the aforesaid unlawful entry of Class-9 in revenue papers, over the land in suit. To my mind, the aforesaid impugned order, passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner is well-discussed, well-reasoned, well-founded and wholly warranted in law and as such, it must be maintained.