PITAMBAR DUTTA Vs. SMT. ROSHAN DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-9-1975 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14-3-1975 by the learned trial court in a suit under Sec. 229-B/209 of the U.P. Z. A and L.R. Act.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that Mahant Paras Ram had given a lease of plot number 74 (M) area 63.44 acres in favour of his two sons Lalit Mohan and Jyoti Prasad on 1-3-1952, that after zamindari abolition, they became bhumidhars of the land, that the land in dispute being 3 acres and part of the larger plot number 74(M) area 63.44 acres was got released by the defendant Pitamber Dutt wrongly from the forest Settlement Officer and that the defendant having no title to the land is liable to be ejected. The case of the defendant Pitamber Dutt is that the land in question is not identifiable, that the basis of the plaintiff's title which is the lease has not been filed in original, that the defendant has become bhumidhar by obtaining sanad bhumidhari of the land in question which is according to the present numbering after record operation's plot number 547-B area 127 acres and 575-B area 1.73 acres, that the land of the plaintiff is in plot number 547-A which is separate from the above 3 acres land, that the defendant-appellant is bhumidhar of the land in question and the plaintiff has no concern with this land at all. The learned trial court has decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs are sirdar of plot number 74(M) area 63.44 acres and that the land in dispute is part of this plot and is also identifiable on the spot in accordance with the report of the Advocate-Commissioner Sir Singhal. The learned Additional Commissioner has confirmed this decree giving a finding that the land is identifiable, relying on the report of the Advocate-Cora-missioner and also holding that the defendant appellant has not been able to show as to how he acquired his title.