DAMODAR DAS Vs. DEVENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendants second appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7-5-1997 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27-12-1996, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z. A. & L.R. Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that one Anand Singh s/o. Har Prasad Singh, r/o village Dhakka Kundanpur, tehsil, pergana and district Moradabad in­stituted a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, impleading one Damodar Das and others as defendants, for declaring him the sole Bhumidhar in possession over the land in dispute as detailed down at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court, by means of its order, dated 27-12-1996, has decreed the aforesaid suit. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Addi­tional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order dated 27-12-1996 and dis­missed the aforesaid appeal. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) FOR the appellant it was contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are against the law and facts of the case, that the sale-deed in question was executed by Anand Singh and the interpretation made by the learned trial Court is wrong and illegal on the face of record, that the aforesaid sale-deed was proved by the sub-registrar concerned by means of his statement that he knew Anand Singh who executed the aforesaid sale-deed before him, that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are erroneous, perverse and contrary to the provisions of law as such, the same are liable to be set aside, that the learned Courts below have not discussed and considered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record, as such the case be remanded to the learned trial Court for recording proper finding on the matter in question, In reply the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid sale-deed is void document and the learned trial Court has correctly discussed, considered and evaluated the evidence on record and has rightly recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the aforesaid sale-deed was not executed by Anand Singh and the same is void docu­ment, that the learned lower appellate Court has also rightly dismissed the ap­peal, that the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned Courts below be maintained'. In support of his contentions he has cited the case-laws reported in AIR 1982 SC 679, AIR 1997 AIM. 185, 1978 ALJ139 and AIR 1983 SC 114.