SONA DEVI Vs. JAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Sona Devi and others have filed this second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act against the judgment and decree passed by Additional Commissioner Kanpur Division dated 30-7-1994.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act before the trial Court on the basis of his possession over the land in dispute for the last more than 30 years. Defendants by filing the written statement denied the claim of the plaintiff-respondent and a specific date was also mentioned in the written statement that on 21-5-1971 the plaintiff-respondent Jai Ram was ejected from the land in dispute and the possession was delivered by survey Commissioner. During the consolidation proceedings too the parties contested the case again the claim of the plaintiff-respondent Jai Ram was not accepted by the consolidation authorities. The learned trial Court partly allowed the plaint of plaintiff regarding plot No. 155 Min area 1-15-0. Aggrieved by this order two appeals were preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner Kanpur Division. The learned Additional Commissioner after due consideration of the evidence on record dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by this order Smt. Sona Devi and others have filed this second appeal. Plaintiff-respondent Jai Ram did not take any step against that order.

(3.) THE learned trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. but he forget this fact that no rights can be given on the basis of such report that the plaintiff-respondent was found over the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. The land is also not identifiable. Partly decreeing the suit the identifiability of the land in dispute must be established. In support of his argument the learned Counsel for the appellant cited RR 2000 page 478 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the judgments of all the Courts were erroneous and this was sufficient ground not to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. It was the bouden duty of the Courts below to have established the land in dispute on the basis of which rights were given. The compliance of Para A-80 and A-81 of the Land Records Manual has also not been complied with. In case of adverse possession it is relevant to comply with these relevant paras. If the notice is not served on the person concerned the claim of adverse possession should not be accepted. The plaintiff-respondent was ejected on 21-5-71. During the consolidation proceedings the matter was against agiated between the same parties and claim of the plaintiff-respondent was not accepted. All the ingredients laid down for perfecting his rights on the basis of adverse possession are missing. I find sufficient ground to interfere in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below.