The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of review under Order 47, Rule 1, C. P. C., emphasizing the requirement for an error apparent on the face of the record and the prohibition against reassessing evidence or substituting new findings.

( 1 ) BY means of this F. A. F. O. the appellant has challenged the order dated 13-1-1995 passed by Sri Bir Bhadra Singh the then learned VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Miscellaneous (Review) case No. 12 of 1991 allowing the review application and setting aside the judgments and order dated 13-2-1991 passed by his predecessor (XIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad) in Civil Appeal No. 267 of 1987 and fixing a date for fresh hearing of the said appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present8 F. A. F. O. , briefly stated, were that the respondents Nageshwar Prasad and Smt. Gulab Kali, hereinafter, called the plaintiffs, filed suit No. 770 of 1986 against appellant Santosh Kumar, hereinafter called the defendant, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession over plot No. 287 ara 11 Bigha 17 Biswas, 13 dhoors situate at village Bhalua, Tappa Manda, Pargana Khairagarh, Tahsil Meja, District Allahabad with the allegations that Nawal Kishore was the Bhoomidhar in possession of the plot in suit. The said Nawal Kishore died on 27-9-1984 leaving Smt. Sonpati, his widow as his sole heir, who became Bhoomidhar of the said plot. Smt. Sonpati sold the said plot in favour of plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated 5-6-1985 and put them in possession over it. The defendant, having no concern or connection with the plot in suit, threatened to take forcible possession over it; hence the suit on 6-8-1986.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit mainly on the ground that Nawal Kishore had transferred the plot in suit in his favour through a registered sale deed dated 19-10-1984 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000, and put him in possession over it. Nawal Kishore had three daughters namely Smt. Phool Kali married with plaintiff No. 1, Gulab Kali married with one Prem Shankar and Anar Kali married with defendant. Since, Nawal Kishore had no male issue, he and his wife Smt. Sonpati intended to sell the plot in suit, which the defendant agreed and sale deed was executed. After execution of sale deed the defendant applied for mutation of his name. In mutation proceeding Smt. Sonpati admitted the execution of sale deed and possession of defendant over plot in suit. When plaintiff No. 1 came to know about the sale deed he obtained another sale deed dated 5-6-1985 in favour of him and his wife from Smt. Sonpati much after death of Nawal Kishore. Smt. Sonpati was not competent to execute sale deed and alleged sale deed had no effect on the title of defendant. He further contended that suit was barred by the provisions of Section 331 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.

( 4 ) THE trial Court framed following issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties :-1. Whether the suit was under valued and Court-fee paid was insufficient?2. Whether the suit was barred by provisions of Section 331 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act?3. Whether the plaintiff was owner in possession of the property in suit?4. Whether Nawal Kishore died on 27-9-1984 as alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint?5. Relief.

( 5 ) ON considering the evidence of the parties of the trial Court held that suit was properly valued and Court-fee paid was sufficient. Since the suit was for permanent injunction, it was not barred by provisions of Section 331 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. It further held that plaintiffs could not prove that Nawal Kishore died on 27-9-1984 and the plaintiffs also failed to prove their title and possession over the plot in suit. With these findings the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1987.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No. 287 of 1987. The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 13-2-1991. Thereafter, on 6-3-1991 the plaintiffs filed a review application under Order 47, Rule 1, C. P. C.

( 7 ) D