JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, dated March 18, 1971 in appeal No. 69 confirming the order of the Assistant Collector, first Class, Fatehpur, dated September 27, 1968 in case No. 81 under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and Land Reforms Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the records. 3. Bhagwan Singh and three others had filed the suit for declaration of their Sirdari rights in certain plots and for ejectment of Din Bandhu Singh and Gyani Singh, defendants No. 1 and 2 if they were found to be in possession. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit on the ground that even after their ejectment from the land in a previous ejectment suit they continued to remain in possession and no Dakhal was actually taken and thus had become Sirdars by virtue of their continuous possession for the last 15-20 years. Both the courts below have decreed the suit. Gyani Singh, defendant No. 2, has come up in second appeal. 4. The grounds taken in the appeal are that firstly the courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and secondly that the so called Dakhal was fictitious and only a paper transaction and had not passed actually possession to the plaintiff-respondents. 5. The plaintiff-respondents are recorded Sirdars of the land in suit from before the Abolition of Zamindari. The records show that they had filed and ejectment suit against the contesting defendants earlier which was decreed on June 5, 1957. Thereafter possession was delivered to them by the Kurk Amin according to the Dakhalnama dated June 26, 1957 which is on record. The Dakhal bears the signatures of the Kurk Amin, plaintiff-respondent, Chhedua Chaukidar and Rameshwar Prasad, member of the Gaon Sabha. There is nothing to show that it is a merely paper transaction and that no possession was actually delivered. It would indeed be a travesty of judicial proceedings if any party claims right on the basis of defiance of a court's judicial order and of delivery of possession made in pursuance of that order by a functionary of the court. Apart from that all evidence points out to the possession of the plaintiff-respondents. These include Khasra extracts, rent receipts and substantial oral evidence. Apart from that all evidence points out to the possession of the plaintiff-respondents. These include Khasra extracts, rent receipts and substantial oral evidence. The court below have rightly held that as the defendants were not found to be in possession it was not necessary to pass any order regarding their ejectment. 6. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a new point not taken in the memo of appeal that the land in suit was not identifiable. The courts below have already held that the land in suit was completely identifiable. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Narayan Das v. Sarju Prasad 1977 RD 206 in which the criteria for identifiability of land have been summed up as (1) a separate plot number, (2) its exact area being specified, (3) precise boundaries being indicated and (4) its location in the village map. All these criteria are fully met in the present case, and there is no force in the plea that the land in suit is not identifiable. 7. I find no merit in the second appeal and dismiss it with costs.