SUNDER LAL Vs. RAM CHARAN ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal filed against the decree and judgment dated 31-3-1990 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of the judgment and decree dated 3-8-87 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class Karvi, district Banda, under Section 229-B UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that Ram Charan and others plaintiff filed a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act alleging that prior to zamindari abolition the ancestors of plaintiff's and defendants were zamindars and after the abolition of zamindari the plaintiff's alongwith defendants Nos. 1 to 14 are co-bhumidhars of the land in dispute hence the plaintiff's may be declared co-bhumidhars alongwith defendants 1 to 14 of the said land. The defendants appellant contested the suit inter alia on the ground that Sheo Lochan and Nadram being sole Khudkast holder of the and in dispute and being in actual possession over the disputed land on the date of vesting the names of only defendants Nos. 1 to 5 was correctly recorded in revenue records and the plaintiff's and the resent of defendants have no right or title over the said land. The trial Court after taking evidence of both the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff's respondents by its order dated 3-8-87. The plaintiff's respondents being aggrieved filed appeal No. 161/29 before the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi who by his order and judgment dated 31-3-90 set aside the order 3-8- 87 passed by the trial Court and after allowing the declared the plaintiff's respondents co-bhumidhar alongwith defendants over the land in dispute. Against this order and judgment dated 31-3-1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner the present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the khatuni extract relating to 1360-61F proved that Sheo Lochan and Nand Ram were the only recorded Bhumidhars of the land in dispute, that after the abolition of zamindari compensation roll was prepared but the plaintiff's respondents raised no objection against it and the land in dispute was exclusively recorded in the name of Sheo Lochan and Nandram by the order dated 5-5-62 passed by the compensation officer in case No. 346, that the possession of the defendant-respondents was not proved over the land in dispute. He argued that the findings recorded by the trial Court was based on correct appraisal of evidence on record and the learned Additional Commissioner erred in law in reversing the findings of trial Court without any lawful grounds. Hence the order and judgment passed by the Additional Commissioner should be set aside and the order passed by the trial Court may be confirmed.