Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the plaintiffs appellant, defendant respondent and perused the record.

2. The facts as culled out from the record are that the plaintiffs appellant filed original suit No. 530 of 2002, Vishambhar Singh and another versus Durbeen Singh for cancellation of sale-deed executed in favour of defendant respondent by Sri Ram Veer, Sri Ram Vilash, Sri Pooran Singh and Sri Mangal Singh in respect of land Nos. 448,450,452 and 477. The plaintiffs appellant claimed themselves to be the owners of the aforesaid land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant respondent denying the claim of the plaintiffs appellant.

4. The trial Court has recorded a finding of fact that the matter is sub-judice before the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53542 of 2006, Durbeen Singh versus State of U.P. and others in which an order of status quo to be maintained between the parties, has been passed , hence the plaintiffs appellant have no right to file suit for cancellation of the sale-deed without final direction of their rights..

5. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellant is that the trial Court has committed an error on face of record by placing reliance on entry made on the basis Pa-Ka-11, which is not sustainable in law. He has also assailed the findings of the trial Court that the parties in the suit i.e. plaintiffs appellant cannot file suit for cancellation of the sale-deed as they were not recorded tenure holders is without jurisdiction.

6. The findings aforesaid of the trial Court were challenged by the plaintiffs appellant in appeal before the first Appellate Court which also dismissed the appeal by observing that the findings recorded by the trial Court do not require any interference. The lower Appellate Court has also observed that issue Nos. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 decided by the trial Court were not challenged by the plaintiffs appellant in the first appeal.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the defendant respondent is that he had purchased the land in dispute from the grandsons of Dibiya as such he being the legal heir and representative of Dibiya had right to sell the property in dispute.

8. From perusal of the judgment of the Courts below it appears that the plaintiffs appellant claim perfection of their right on the land in dispute by adverse possession over the land in dispute for more than 60 years i.e. even from before Zamindari Abolition. The Courts below have recorded categorical findings that the plaintiffs appellant have failed to prove their case of the true owner. The Courts below have also observed that till rights are settled by adjudication in favour of the plaintiffs appellant in the matter subjudice before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 53542 of 2006,Durbeen Singh versus State of U.P. and others, they had no right to file suit on the basis of their alleged adverse possession for cancellation of the sale-deed executed by the legal heirs and representatives of Dibiya. In this regard the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court that the plaintiffs appellant have failed to prove their case of possession much less than of adverse possession for more than 60 years since before Zamindari Abolition are quoted below for ready reference.

**izfroknh dh rjQ ls i=koyh ij dkxt la0 52x@4 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV fiVh’ku la[;k 53542@06 nqchZu flag cuke jkT; vkfn esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 27-9-2006 dh lR; izfrfyfi nkf[ky dh x;h gS ftlesa fy[kk gS fd bl U;k;ky; ds vfxze vkns’k rd fjV fiVh’ku esa mHk;i{k dks fookfnr lEifRr ds dCtk o izÑfr ds lEcU/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr j[kus ds fy;s funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gSA bl vkns’k ds fo:) dksbZ vkns’k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ds laca/k esa oknhx.k@vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls dksbZ dkxt nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k vkSj ,slk Hkh dksbZ dkxt nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k fd bl fjV fiVh’ku dk fuLrkj.k vafre :i ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk dj fy;k x;k gksA ftlls Li"V gS fd ekeyk vHk