1. Heard Sri Manish Dev, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and Sri Surendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents.

2. This is plaintiff's appeal. The Original Suit No.276 of 2011(Kalu Singh and others v. Raghunath Singh and others) was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents with respect to land of Khasra Plot No.2466-M, area 0.543 hectares situate at Amroha Ander Chungi Thok Ali Mohammad Khan, Tehsil Amroha, district J.P. Nagar. The said suit was decreed by the court of First Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amroha by judgment dated 31.7.2018.

3. Aggrieved with this judgment, the defendants-respondents filed first appeal being Civil Appeal No.94 of 2017 (Raghunath Singh and others v. Kalu Singh and others), which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 31.7.2018 passed by the District Judge, Amroha, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, has been set aside and the suit has been dismissed.

4. Aggrieved with the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs-appellants have filed the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS:

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants submits that the first appellate court has misconstrued the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellants as a suit for declaration of rights on the basis of adverse possession. The appellants had proved their adverse possession hostile to the oral owner. The real owner Ganeshi Lal died in the year 1958. The name of his sons were not mutated in the revenue record, although, they filed application and it is only on 15.4.2010, that the name of the defendants-respondents (grand sons of Ganeshi Lal) was mutated. The first appellate court has allowed the appeal of the defendants-respondents without setting aside the findings of the trial court. The suit for adjudication of adverse possession under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, is pending before the revenue court. The plaintiffs-appellants have perfected their rights over the suit property by adverse possession hostile to the real owner.

6. Learned counsel for the defendants-respondents submits that the ancestor of the defendants-respondents, namely, Sri Ganeshi Lal had purchased the said property by a registered sale deed dated 13.1.1943 and they are continuing in possession. Their names were also mutated in revenue records. Neither necessary pleadings were made nor the evidences could be led by the plaintiffs-appellants on settled principles of adverse possession.

7. Learned counsel for the defendants-respondents supports the impugned judgment of the first appellate court and submits that the matter is concluded by findings of fact and no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

8. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that admittedly, the suit property was purchased by Sri Ganeshi Lal son of Sri Kalyan Das (Grand father of the defendants-respondents) by a registered sale-deed dated 31.10.1943, which was filed in evidence by the defendants before the trial court. It is also the admitted fact that in the revenue records, namely in Khasras and Khataunis, the name of the aforesaid Sri Ganeshi Lal, (Grand-father of the defendants) is recorded since the year 1943. The suit property was grove. Sri Ganeshi Lal died in the year 1958. However, his name continued in the revenue records till the order of the competent authority dated 15.4.2010 mutating the names of the defendants. The plaintiffs-appellants could not lead any documentary evidence in support of their allegation of possession over the disputed plot. However, they separately filed Case No.73 of 2010 before the revenue court for declaration, which is stated to be pending.

9. In paragraph-19 of the impugned judgment, the first appellate court recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs-appellants have not filed copies of any Khasra/other documents to show that they had ever be