DHARAMPAL SINGH Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dharam Pal Singh has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5-3-2003 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the trial Court. The learned trial Court decreed the suit after due consideration of the facts and evidence on record. Aggrieved by this order, plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner Bareilly Division who also dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) AFTER perusal of the judgment it is not clear that the sale- deed dated 22-6-1977 was declared void document by Munsif Pilibhit. Whether the sale-deed has been cancelled or if void then what are the reasons on which the document has been declared as void. As regards the point of adverse possession it is true that on what date the appellant entered into possession over the land in dispute, is not clear. Both the Courts below have mentioned in their judgments that the sale-deed dated 22-6-1977 has been declared as void document by the Munsif concerned but on what grounds is not evident. So, merely on the basis of the findings given by the Munsif concern both the Courts below should have given a categorical finding that it is a document which is void on these grounds but they have failed to do so. In my opinion, the matter needs a de-novo decision on this ground by affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence to prove that the document is void on these grounds and if void then why.