MANDIR SHANKAR MAHADEO Vs. GANGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal, preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 29-3-1996, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of the judgment and decree, dated 31-10-1994 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit 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 arc that the plaintiff, Mandir Shankar Mahadeo through its Manager filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defendants, Smt. Ganga Devi, Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P. for declaration of their rights as bhumidhar over the land in dispute on the basis of a Will dated 22-8-1984 executed by late Dhanpal Singh in their favour. The cause of action arose when their application under Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act was rejected. Defendats contested the suit, denying the allegations and pleading that Dhanpal Singh had executed a Will dated 15-2-1984 in her favour. The learned Trial Court after completing the requisite trial, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner too has concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and dis-Missed the first appeal. Hence the is second appeal.

(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the records, it is manifestly clear that the learned trial Court has properly and thoroughly analysed, discussed and considered the material and relevant aspects of the instant case in correct perspective of law and has recorded a clear and catagorical finding to the effect that the Will set up by the plain­tiff- appellant is dubious and doubtful and the possession of the plaintiff has not been established. 11 is worthwhile to mention here that the plaintiff-appellant has utterly failed to produce the Will in original before the Court and uncertified copy of the same has been filed which is 'not admissible in evidence. The learned trial Court has properly examined the points, at issue in its aforesaid judgment and order dated 31-10-1994. The learned lower appellate Court has also rightly confirmed the aforesaid order and dismissed the appeal. The plain­tiff-appellant has miserably failed to sub­stantiate their claims over the land in suit.