GOMTI Vs. MANGALI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal, preferred against the judg­ment and decree, dated January 7, 1994 passed by the learned Addl. Commis­sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of a judgment and decree dated 30-5-1990 passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R.ACL

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that one Dallu had three sons Narain, Seva Ram and Buddhi. Buddhi and Narain has died issueless. The widow of Narain was Smt. Gulabi who has also died. Shiv Ram had one son named Naubat who has 4 sons (Appellant No. 1 to 4), in whose favour the aforesaid Narain has executed a Will on May 27, 1980. One Smt. Gomti alleged the daughter of aforesaid Narain s/o Dallu instituted a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, for declar­ing her Bhumidhari and transferable rights, over the disputed land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. Learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial decreed the suit of the plaintiff on May 30, 1990. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Addl. Commis­sioner has reversed the finding of the learned trial Court and has allowed the appeal on January 7, 1994, hence this second appeal.

(3.) FOR the appellant, it was contended that the findings of the first appellate Court are based on misreading of evidence and surmises and conjecture, that the learned Additional Commissioner without assigning any reason has reversed the findings of the learned trial Court and has not properly appreciated the evidence on record that the appellant Smt. Gomti has been clearly proved as the sole daughter of the aforesaid Narain that there is no findings on record to the effect that late Narain has executed any Will in favour of the contesting respondents and that the aforesaid alleged Will is not genuine nor has been proved in accord­ance with law, that the defendants/respon­dents have practiced fraud upon the plain­tiff-appellant in getting their names mutated, on the basis of the aforesaid al­leged Will. That the first appellate Court has erred in law in relying upon the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defen­dant/respondent.