JUDGMENT P. Krishen, Member. - This is a reference under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in a case of mutation made by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow dated July 18, 1975 recommending that the order of mutation dated January 21, 1975 passed by the S.D.O. be set aside and the mutation application of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 be rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Phoola, opposite party No. 5 executed a sale deed in favour of Dwarika and others, opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 on the basis of this sale deed Dwarika and others applied for mutation of their names over the land in dispute. On issue of a proclamation Kailash Nath Awasthi and others revisionists filed objections on the ground that the objectors are in possession. The vendees are not in possession. The vendees are not in possession. The vendees had earlier filed an application for mutation on the basis of the very sale deed which was rejected by the order dated January 19, 1972 passed by the S.D.O. and as such the second mutation application on the basis of same sale deed is not maintainable. The sale deed was also void in view of the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Co-operative Land Development Banks Act as the said land was mortgaged with the Co-operative Land Development Bank. After considering the evidence of the parties the S.D.O. Sandila allowed mutation in favour of Dwarika and others, opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 by his order dated January 21, 1975 Being aggrieved by this order of the trial court Kailash Nath Awasthi and others went in revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow who has recommended that the order of the trial court be set aside and the mutation application of Dwarika and others be rejected. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 4. It was argued on behalf of the revisionists that the earlier mutation application moved by the opposite parties on the basis of this very sale deed was already rejected by the trial court on January 19, 1972 and as such no second mutation application on the basis of the same sale deed and same cause of action is maintainable. 4. It was argued on behalf of the revisionists that the earlier mutation application moved by the opposite parties on the basis of this very sale deed was already rejected by the trial court on January 19, 1972 and as such no second mutation application on the basis of the same sale deed and same cause of action is maintainable. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Board polished in 1976 Lucknow Law Journal page 47 and R.Ds. 1934 page 711 and 1938 page 240. The learned counsel further urged that the sale deed on the basis of which the mutation has been sought for has not been proved by evidence in accordance with law and a such the mutation cannot, be allowed in favour of the opposite parties. Last the learned counsel urged that since the vendor had mortgaged the land in dispute with the Co-operative Land Development Bank the vendor had no right to execute the sale deed and the sale deed is void. 5. In reply the learned counsel for the opposite party urged that the earlier mutation application was rejected for want of evidence and as such the second mutation application was maintainable. The trial court has rightly ordered mutation in favour of the opposite parties. The learned counsel further urged that the sale deed is a registered document and it requires not formal proof. 6. I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties and find force in the arguments of the revisionists. It is clear from the record that the earlier mutation application moved by the opposite parties on the basis of the said sale deed was rejected by the trial court on January 19, 1972. The present mutation application moved by the opposite parties on the basis of the same sale deed and same cause of action is not maintainable because the Board have repeatedly held that no second mutation application on the same cause of action is maintainable. Moreover after considering the evidence on record the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that opposite parties have not successfully proved their possession. The trial court was not justified in allowing mutation in favour of the opposite parties. The mutation application should be rejected. 7. Moreover after considering the evidence on record the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that opposite parties have not successfully proved their possession. The trial court was not justified in allowing mutation in favour of the opposite parties. The mutation application should be rejected. 7. In the result, I allow the revision, set aside the order of the trial court dated January 21, 1975 and reject the mutation application of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4.