MATHURA Vs. THUANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against an order passed by Additional Commissoner, Jhansi on 31-5-1996 in First Appeal No. 132/92 of 94-95 where by the learned first appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court and has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Thuana filed a declaratory suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in the Court of S.D.O. Lalitpur claiming that he is recorded tenant with transferable rights of the land in dispute and the names of the defendent Mathura in verg 9 is illegal and against the provisions of flaw which should be struck down and he should be declared bhumidhar of the land, Defendant appellant Mathura contested the case on the ground that father of the plaintiff had transferred this land by way of surity against a loan in the year 1955 and on the basis of which his name was recorded in verg 9 in the khatauni of 1366 Fasli. Therefore, he has acquired rights under Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is baseless. The learned trial Court after examing the records and evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the suit in favour of the defendant-Mathura on the basis of 1955 document. Aggrieved by this plaintiff filed first appeal before Commissioner Jhansi and the learned Commissioner Jhansi by the impugned order decreed the suit of the plaintiff and findings of the trial Court were reversed and decree in his favour was issued. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree the present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) IN the memo of second appeal no substantial question of law has been framed. Neither during the arguments the learned Counsel for the appellant tried to do the same. Second appeal can lie only on a substantial question of law, not otherwise. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case this second appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.