LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-449

SURENDRA SINGH Vs. B.R.

Decided On March 28, 2011
SURENDRA SINGH Appellant
V/S
B.R. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V. K. S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. R. S. Maurya, learned Counsel for tine Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that he has no instructions from his client to argue the matter and as such, he cannot advance any submissions in rebuttal to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. This writ petition pertains to the year 1984 and is quite old. The record reveals that the parties are litigating since 1970. Under these circumstances, the case is being decided finally with the assistance of the Standing Counsel as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

(2.) THE instant writ petition arises out of the proceedings initiated by the Petitioners -Plaintiffs by filing a suit for declaring them as Sirdars and Defendants -Respondents not to be declared as bhumid -hars over the disputed plots.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that it is not open for the Second Appellate Authority to interfere with the findings of fact, as substantial question of law can only be answered by the Second Appellate Authority. It has further been stated that the statements of Jayanti Prasad and Tej Singh have wrongly been misinterpreted while allowing the appeal insofar as Jayanti Prasad, who is 'Scriber' of the document, proved that the document was written by him at the dictation of Arjun Singh sole Zamindar, but the same has not been signed before him, whereas his son Tej Singh, while proving the aforesaid document verified and proved the signatures of his father. Therefore, the document has been proved on the basis of statements and accordingly, a specific finding has been recorded by the First Appellate Court in this regard. Thus, it cannot be said that the statements are contrary to each other and as such, the findings so recorded by the Second Appellate Authority are erroneous and contrary to the material on record.