INDRA KANT ETC. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331(3) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11-2-1994 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in appeal No. 80/335 of 1992-93/Lalitpur, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1993/8-4-1993 passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant second appeal are that the plaintiffs, Indrakant Singh etc. instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defendants, State of U.P. etc. for declaration of their rights as bhumidhars with transferable rights of the land in dispute, inter alia pleading that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were recorded of the land in dispute till 1356-F but in 1359-F, only 1.10 acres area was recorded in the name of Meharban Singh while he was cultivating the entire area of 11.40 acres and their father continued to do so; that Maharaj Singh who died issueless, executed a Will in their favour and therefore, after the death Raghubir Singh, their father, they continued to cultivate the entire area in dispute. The cause of action arose on the inspection of papers. On notice, the defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit, denying the allegations. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide its decree dated 31-3-1993. An appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has also been dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, vide his judgment and decree dated 11-2-1994 and therefore, it is against these judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below that the instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also scanned the record on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that in 1356-F, Meharban Singh was recorded on plot Nos. 6/8/6.68 acres and 6/8/5.83 acres while in 1359-F, he was recorded only on plot No. 6/2/1.40 acres. The learned trial Court has observed that it goes to show that the rights of Meharban Singh over 12.51 acres area which is entered in blue in 1359-F, had already been extinguished before 1359-F, against which no action whatsoever had been taken either by him or by his successors, Raghubir Singh and Maharaj Singh. It is also noticeable that in 1359-F, Ziman is not recorded for plot No. 6/8 area 12.51 acres and since this area was not under cultivation, its vesting in the State is perfectly justified in the eyes of law. Both the learned Courts below have dealt with the matter in question in depth, analytically and logically incorrect perspective of law and their findings duly arrived at after proper appreciation of evidence on record, are rather saturated with which no interference is called for by this Court and therefore, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reason. No substantial question of law is involved and nothing remains to be decided in this second appeal and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record, am quite convinced that the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs and rendering the impugned judgments and decrees and therefore, in my considered opinion, this second appeal having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright.