SIYA RAM SINGH Vs. SATYA NARAIN ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Pandey, Member. These are two second appeals against the judgment and decree, dated 17-2-1994, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varansi Division, Varanasi, in Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of 1991, arising out of the judgment and decree, dated 31-10-1991, passed by the learned trial Court in 2 suits under Sections 229-B/209 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant second appeals are that Sia Ram etc. instituted a Suit No. 4 under Sections 229-B/209 of the Act for declaration of their rights as bhumidhar of the land in dispute against the defendant, Satya Nararain, impleading the State of U. P. and the Gaon Sabha concerned, inter-alia pleading that the name of Defendant No. 3, Satya Narain has been wrongly entered in the revenue records. The Defendant No. 3, Satya Narain also instituted a Suit No. 49 under Sections 229-B/209 of the Act for decelaration of his rights against Sia Ram etc. , on the basis of his possession over that land, in dispute, perfecting his title. The learned trial Court vide its order and decree, dated 14-4-83, decreed the suit of Satya Narain. In appeal, the decree of the learned trial Court was reversed and the suits were remanded to it for decision, afresh on merits according to law. The learned trial Court, vide its decree, dated 31-10-1991, dismissed the suit of Satya Narain and ordered for expunction of the entry of his name from ziman-9. He went up in two first appeals before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has allowed the same, dismissing the Suit No. 4 while decreeing the Suit No. 49. It is against these decrees that the instant second appeals have been preferred by the palintiffs, Sia Ram etc. before the Board.

(3.) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to the matter in question. I come to the conclusion that the learned trial Court has dealt with the matter in question, very analytically and logically in the right perspective of law, while the learned Additional Commissioner has swayed away on illogical and flimsy grounds. The findings, recorded by the learned trial Court have been arrived at after due and proper appreciation of evidence on record, in its right perspective of law with which I entirely agree. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of adverse possession the continuous and hostile possession uninterrupted and without the consent of the recorded tenure holder, is a legal and mandatory requirement of which no presumption can be attached and which is rather lacking in the instant case. The learned trial Court has, therefore, very rightly dismissed the claim of Satya Narain, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim and therefore, agreeing with the views, expressed by the learned trial Court, I intend to accept the calim of Sia Ram etc. instead of the claim of Satya Narain and as such, these appeals very richly deserve to be allowed in toto.