GIRJA SHANKER Vs. OUDH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1995, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, in appeal No. 177-Faizabad, allowing the same and reversing the judgment and decree dated 12-6-1989, 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 revision petition are that the plaintiffs, Girja Shanker etc. instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act for declaration of their rights as bhumidhars of the land, in dispute, with transferable rights on the basis of their adverse possession for more than 30 years, as they have perfected their rights under Section 210 of the Act, inter alia pleading that since the defendants, being powerful men, got a sale-deed, executed in their favour of Ram Autar in 1983, they continued to disturb them in their peaceful possession of the land, in dispute and therefore, the cause of action arose. The defendants, on notice, contested the case, inter alia, pleading that since they acquired the land, in dispute, through a registered sale-deed, dated 30-10-1983 from its bhumidhars of which mutation has also taken place on 23-12-1983, they are in actual physical possession of the land, in dispute and the plaintiffs have no concern whatsoever with it. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and declared them as bhumidhars of the land, in dispute, with transferable rights, expunging the names of the defendants 1 and 2 from the revenue records, vide its judgment and decree, dated 12-6-1989 and as such, the defendant went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has allowed the same and reversed the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court, vide his judgment and decree, dated 28-2-1995 and therefore, it is against this judgment and decree that the instant revision petition has been preferred by Girja Shanker before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record on file. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that they have come out successfully in proving their adverse possession on the land, in dispute, as well as maturing their rights under Section 210 of the Act by prescription of law. To the contrary, the learned Additional Commissioner has reversed the findings, recorded by the learned trial Court and has allowed the appeal, filed by the defendants. He has, in fact, categorically observed that the oral evidence, which has bearing on this case, led by Girja Shanker, plaintiff, is contradictory and appears to be doubtful and the same is the position of his second witness. It is the admitted case of the parties, concerned that the original tenure-holder was Ram Autar, who had executed a registered sale-deed in favour of the defendants and since the plaintiff has not matured their rights by prescription of law at the time of the execution of the aforesaid sale-deed, the whole theory of their claim falls to the ground. The views expressed by him are quite logical and obvious in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as evidence on record and therefore, I am in entire agreement with the same. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reason and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record, am fully convinced that no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction has either been committed by him. Since the findings, recorded by him, being duly arrived at after due and proper appreciation of evidence on record, are rather categorical and saturated with which no interference is called for by this Court at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright.