SURAJDEEN Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been field against the judgment and decree dated 17-11-98 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Chitrokoot Dham in Appeal No. 231 of 1997-98 arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Surajdeen and another instituted a suit for declaration that they were bhumidhars of the land in suit. They pleaded that the land in question as their ancestral tenancy and continued to be in possession from before the date of vesting. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that they had acquired rights by being in adverse possession for over statutory period. The learned trial Court framed issues and gave both parties an opportunity of adducing evidence and of being heard. It decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed before the learned Additional Commissioner which was allowed. Hence the present second appeal.

(3.) IN the present case the father of the plaintiff was recorded in 1359-F and acquired rights of sirdari/bhumidhar after the date of vesting. The defendants claimed to have perfected their rights on the basis of adverse possession. The main question involved for consideration is whether the defendants have been able to show that they have perfected rights over the land in question by being in continuous adverse possession for over 12 years. It no doubt appears that the name of the defendants were recorded in Ziman 9 in 1367 Fasli. The crus of the matter would depend whether the entries in favour of the defendants were made in accordance with the provisions of Land Records Manual and after issuance of PA 10 etc. The learned Additional Commissioner after considering the evidence on record found that the entries made in favour of the defendants had been made after following the provisions of Land Records Manual. The learned Additional Commissioner took note of the specific fact that Parchi PA 10 was dated 13-2-60 (1367 Fasli). The period of limitation for bringing a suit under Section 209 of the Act was made six years with effect from 27-3-59 (1366-F). From the evidence on record it has been established that the defendant continued to be in possession from 1366F. The entries in his favour were found have been made in accordance with the provisions of Land Records Manual. This conclusion of the learned Additional Commissioner is based on a full and proper consideration of the evidence on record. The view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is correct. The learned trial Court erred in law in taking a view to the contrary.