RAGHUBAR Vs. JUJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three second appeals, preferred against the judgment and decree, dated May 18, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of the judgment and decree, dated 16.1.86/3.2.86 passed by the learned trial court in the suit instituted under Sec. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Since the facts and law points are similar in the aforesaid 3 appeals, as such, these 3 second appeals are being decided with a common judgment. Second appeal No. 123 shall be the leading case.

(2.) Brief and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit under Sec. 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the defendant for declaration over the disputed land, as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial court, after completing the requisite trial, has dismissed the aforesaid suit on Jan. 16, 1986. Aggrieved by this order, three appeals were preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the aforesaid appeals and set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 16.1.86/3.2.86 passed by the learned trial court. Hence these three second appeals.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records on file. For the appellant, it was contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is against law and facts of the case, that the plaintiff respondents No. 1 and 2 have failed to prove that the disputed holding in an ancestral property, that the parties to the instant suit separated all the shares and the land before U.P. U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act came into force, hence claims of the respondent No. 1 and 2 are barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence, that the suits of the plaintiffs respondents are time barred and hence the learned Additional Commissioner has erred in law in holding otherwise, that the following pedigree set up by the plaintiff-respondents is us under:- Further, it was urged that the aforesaid pedigree has been denied by the defendant-appellant and the plaintiffs-respondents have miserably failed to prove this one, that no positive and cogent evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs-respondents to prove the disputed land ancestral, but the learned lower appellate court has illegally and wrongfully allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.1.86/3.2.86, passed by the learned trial court. In support of his contention, he has cited the case law, reported in 1986 R.D. page 131 (BR). The learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary issue to the effect, that these second appeals preferred by the appellant are not maintainable, as no substantial question of law has been framed in the memo of second appeal, as laid down in case law reported in A.I.R. 1999 S.C. page 864, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court page 1400, 1986 R.D. H.C. page 134, 1987 R.D. page 319 (BR), that as there is no any substantial question of law involved in these second appeals, as such these appeals are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.