NANDURAM Vs. RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal of Nanduram and others is directed against the order of first appellate Court dated 11-11-1991 dismissing the appeal against the order and decree of the trial Court dated 31-7-1979 decreeing the suit of respondents in action at law under Section 229-B of ZA and LR Act.

(2.) THE facts as per the exposition in the pleadings are Jagarnath, Bachau and Lallan filed suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act for declaration that the plaintiffs are co-bhumidhars alongwith Ghure and Ramroop, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with the allegations that the successors of Rachchhoo are members of joint family and Vishvanath was the head and Karta of the family, that the land in dispute was acquired by the sons of Rachchhoo in the state of jointness, that the entry in the name of Vishvanath, was recorded in the revenue papers in representative capacity and on his death Ghure, defendant No. 1 was recorded in the representative capacity, that the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession over the disputed land, that the plaintiffs requested the defendants to get the names of the plaintiffs also recorded as co-Bhumidhar but they refused, hence the suit was filed for the aforesaid relief. A pedigree was also given in the plaint.

(3.) THE substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal were not formulated in the memo of appeal and these have been formulated subsequently and filed alongwith an application dated 31-5- 2002 at the time of argument. THEse substantial questions are: (a) Whether the Courts below have ignored the entire documentary evidence i. e. Revenue entries and Khatauni entries right from 1334 Fasli onwards and the findings recorded by the Courts below declaring the plaintiffs respondents as co-tenure holders, are preverse based on no legal and relevant evidence on record? (b) Whether Zaman 9 entry made in favour of the plaintiffs without serving notice in PA Form 24 and witout complying with the provisions of para A-55a of L. R. Manual is inadmissible evidence and the findings of the trial Court based thereon are vitiated by manifest errors of law. (c) Whether the suit is barred by Section 42 old S. R. Act to Section 34 of new S. R. Act. (d) Whether the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by the principle of res-judicata in as much as a portion of land in dispute was acquired by the State Government in land acquisition proceeding and compensation was exclusively paid to Vishvanath or his successors. THE Counsel for the respondents have filed written objection dated 18-6-2002 with the contention that these formulated questions are not substantial questions of law and there is no subsequential questions of law involved in the scond appeal. This has also been pleaded that the second appeal be dismissed as conclusions and findings of both the Courts below is based on proper appreciation of the evidences which cannot be interfered in second appeal.