Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21674 Court No. - 5 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 112 of 2022 Appellant :- Mata Prasad Respondent :- Shahid Kaleem (Dead)Thru. Legal Heirs Mohd. Yonus Waqar And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Bhagwati Prasad Nigam,Anil Kumar Awasthi,Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Instant second appeal has been filed praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FTC) First, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No.38 of 1999 in re: Mata Prasad vs. Shahiud Kaleem and others and the judgment and decree dated 22.09.1998 passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (SD), Faizabad in Civil Suit No.45 of 1981 in re: Shahid Kaleem and others vs. Mata Prasad and others. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that Sri Shahid Kaleem and others filed an Original Suit No.45 of 1981 before the learned first Additional Civil Judge (SD) Faizabad praying for a permanent injunction with respect to certain properties in dispute. 4. The appellant herein was one of the defendants in the said suit before the learned trial court. The learned trial court had framed various issues of which issues no.1, 2 and 3 were as to whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the land in dispute; whether the plaintiffs have been evicted from the land in dispute subsequent to filing of the suit, and whether the defendants are the owners of the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. Certain other issues were also framed which may not detain the Court. 5. Learned trial court while considering issues no.1, 2 and 3 as indicated above and after having gone through the evidence as had been led by the parties was of the view that the land in fact belonged to one Sri Mohd. Yasin, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, and he had executed a sale deed in favour of Sri Shahid Kaleem on the basis of which they are found to be owners of the land in dispute. The learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 22.09.1998 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in any manner. 6. Being aggrieved, the defendant no.1 therein (the appellant herein) filed an appeal no.38 of 1999. 7. The learned appellate court also went in detail and had also considered the khataunies for the years 1344, 1359, 1372, 1374, 1376, 1377, 1382 etc. and was of the view that earlier the name of Sri Mohd. Yasin was recorded and thereafter the name of Sri Shahid Kaleem had been recorded in the records and that there is a registered sale deed in favour of Sri Shahid Kaleem on the basis of which his name had been entered in the land records. 8. The learned appellate court concluded in paragraph 23 of its judgment that on the basis of the revenue records that had been produced, the name of Sri Mohd. Yasin was recorded in the records from 1344F to 1372F and thereafter the name of Sri Shahid Kaleem had been recorded and that there is no other document to indicate that the name of any other person has been recorded anywhere and consequently dismissed the appeal. 9. Being aggrieved, instant second appeal has been filed. 10. The only argument as has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is the agreement dated 05.05.1910, which is an unregistered agreement, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.09.2024, which is said to have been executed by Sri Maulvi Jameer Mohammad in the capacity of being the power of attorney holder of Raja Syed Mohammad Sahadat Ali Khan Nanpara with respect to a house situated over Araji No.2834 indicating that one Sri Ghayasuddin is residing in the said house as a tenant to contend that the appellant had a title over the land in dispute. 11. No other argument has been raised. 12. The aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the appellant is found to be fallacious on account of the reason that (a) the said agreement is an unregistered agreement, and (b) the same indicates that one Sri Ghayasuddin is residing in a house pertaining to Araji No.2834. There is nothing to indicate as to how the appellant Sri Mata Prasad derives any title from one Sri Ghayasuddin who may be a tenant of house built on Araji No.2834 apart from the fact that the plaintiffs namely Sri Shaheed Kalim and others were claiming title over the aforesaid land on the basis of the sale deed which had been executed by the grandfather Mohd. Mohd. Yasin in their favour and all along the land records have indicated the names initially of Sri Mohd. Yasin and thereafter Sri Shahid Kalim. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 A. Katiyar Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench