(1.) BAL bir Singh has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Commissioner dated 9-9.1994.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit under Section 209of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act before the learned trial Court for ejectment of defendant-appellant Balbir Singh. Balbir Singh filed his written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence the learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the land in dispute is bhumidhari land of the plaintiff- respondents. The land is identifiable on the spot and this conies in the definition of the land. Plaintiff-respondent's suit was decreed against which Balbir Singh filed a first appeal before the Commissioner's Court. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by this order, this second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant.
(3.) THE oral evidence cannot discard the documentary evidence and with this point the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the oral evidence has not been discussed is not correct. The learned trial Court has discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence filed by the parties because the documentary evidence is Sanad Bhumidhari, Map, C.H. 11, C.H. 23, C.H. Form 41, C.H. Form 45 and the extract of copy of Khatauni in which the property in question (plot No. 372 Min area 0.2.0.) is recorded as bhumidhari of the plaintiff-respondent, hence oral evidence even if it says that the defendant-appellant is in possession over the land in suit will not give any right. The land is identifiable on the spot. Plot No. 372 Min is land as has been defined under Section 3 (14) of the Act. The findings of both the Courts below are based on fact and law and do not suffer from any jurisdictional, material irregularity or substantial error which needs attention of this Hon'ble Court to interfere.