SAHODRA/RAMESH MOHAN Vs. RAM CHARAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two second appeals preferred against the judgment and decree dated December 30, 1989, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of First Appeals No. 240/22 and 275/53 of 1986-87 District Lalitpur arising out of a judgment and decree dated 23-6-87/13-7-87 passed in suit under Section 229B/209 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Since the facts and law points are similar in both/the second appeals as such these are being decided by the common judgment and order and the second appeal No. 54 of 1989-90 shall be the leading case file.

(2.) BRIEF and relevanl facts of the case arc that the plaintiff Ram Charan in­stituted a suit under Section 229B/209 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration, with the prayer that the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 Raghunandan be declared Bhumidhar with transferable rights in possession over the suit land and the defendant No. 2 Smt. Sahodara has no any possession, title or interest over the disputed land, as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial has ordered on 23-6-87 to the effect that the names of Raghunandan and Ram Charan s/o Saliq Ram, resident of Deogarh be expunged from the suit land situaied in village Deogarh, Pargana Talbaheta district Lalitpur and Smt. Sahodara d/o Murlidhar, w/o Laxmi Narain, r/o Parosiya, be entered with Ramesh Mohan s/o Sriram r/o Deogarh as Colenure holder over the aforesaid suit land. Apart from this the share of Smt. Sahodara d/o Murlidhar w/o Laxmi Narain and Ramesh Mohan s/o Sriram and others have been determined as 1/2 each over the disputed land on 13-6-87. Aggrieved by this order two First Appeals were preferred by one Ram Charan and others. The learned Ad­ditional Commissioner has allowed the aforesaid appeals and set aside the judg­ment and decree dated 23-6-87/13-7-87 passed by the learned trial Court. Hence these second appeals.

(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the records it is abundantly clear that in the memo of ap­peal no any substantial question of law has been framed as such I find much force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent to the main­tainability of the appeals as there is no any substantial question of law involved in this second appeals. In the circumstances the second appeal is not maintainable and in result is liable to be dismissed in view of the aforesaid case law RD 1999 page 180 (SC) and RD 1997 page 476 (HC) referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent.