Heard Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, Counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.E. Khan, Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. Through the instant first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant-Nagar Nigam, Lucknow has assailed the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.22, Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court"], in Regular Suit No. 323 of 2004, whereby the trial Court allowed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 4 and declared that on the basis sale deed in question dated 28.6.1940 Paper No. 89-Ga (loss Paper No. 9Ga/2), the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the owner of land i.e. Khasra No. 1, measuring 30 bigha, 12 biswa, 4 biswansi situated at Village Farukkhabad Chillawan, Pargana Bijnour, Tehsil & District Lucknow.

3. Undisputed facts of the case are that the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, namely, Sri Bharat Singh, filed a suit for perpetual injunction and declaration before the trial Court, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 323 of 2004. Notices were issued. In response thereof, defendant No.4/appellant and defendant Nos. 1 and 2/respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have appeared and filed their written statements but from the side of defendant No.3/respondent No.7, no one has put in appearance and as such, the case was proceeded against him ex parte vide order dated 1.11.2010.

4. After exchange of pleadings, the trial Court framed issue Nos. 1 to 6 on 9.11.2010 and issue No. 7 on 12.1.2013. The issues are as under :

" ?. ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? izfr???? ?? ??????? ??? ????????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???

?. ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? iz?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ???

?. ???? izfr???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ???

?. ???? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???

?. ???? ?????-????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???

?. ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???

?. ???? ?????? ??????? ??.??.???? ??????? ???? ??

???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ?? ???? iz????

5. From the side of plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 4, plaintiff No.1/3/respondent No.3 (Mahendra Pratap Singh) was produced as P.W.1, Shatrudhan Singh as P.W.2 and Shiv Kumar Maurya as P.W.3, whereas from the side of defendant No.4/appellant, Brij Nath Trivedi, Officiating Lekhpal, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, was produced as D.W.1.

6. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by the impugned decree.

7. Hence the instant appeal.

8. While assailing the impugned decree, Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, Counsel for the appellant has contended that prior to promulgation of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"] and after implementation of the Act, the disputed land i.e. Khasra Plot No. 1, measuring 30 bigha, 12 biswa, 4 biswansi situated at Village Farukkhabad Chillawan, Pargana Bijnour, Tehsil & District Lucknow, was recorded as pond/talab in the revenue records and right from the date of vesting, the said pond/disputed land had vested in the State under the provisions of Section 4 and 6 of the Act and till date, the disputed land is recorded as Pond land.

9. While placing reliance upon Sections 4, 6 and 132 of the Act, Sri Mishra has contended that inspite of alleged sale deed dated 28.6.1940, all rights upon the pond land of intermediaries or a person, who is claiming the rights upon the pond land through the intermediaries ceases and the pond land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. Thus, the pond land (disputed land in this case) vests in the State of U.P. from the date of vesting (i.e. 1.7.1952) and the plaintiff-Bharat Singh and his successor (respondent Nos. 1 to 4) have got no legal right to claim declaration over the said land on the basis of alleged unregistered sa