JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated March 13, 1972 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division confirming the order dated February 15, 1969 passed by the Assistant Collector, First Class, Kanpur in a case under Sections 229-B/209, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur had filed a suit seeking a declaration that plot No. 1612 (area 1 Bigha) situated in village Naubasta was the property of the plaintiff-respondent and also seeking the ejectment of the defendant appellant as a trespasser. The courts below have decree the suit. 4. The first and main ground taken in the second appeal is that the land was let out to Sahakari Nirman Parishad by the Land Management Committee, Jang Bahadur Singh was the president of the Sahakari Nirman Parishad and he was not in possession in personal capacity. Thus, the Sahakari Nirman Parishad ought to have been impleaded as a party to the case. This ground is indeed correct. When the defendant appellant has claimed that he was not in possession in his personal capacity but as the President of the Sahakari Nirman Parishad, and that a new President had now been elected the courts below have erred in law in passing a decree against him. In fact they should have impleaded the Parishad and decided the matter vis-a-vis the Nagar Mahapalika and the Sahakari Nirman Parishad. The decree passed by the trial court against the appellant in his personal capacity is meaningless and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 5. Another ground which had been taken is that no evidence was taken in the case and the plaintiff respondent produced neither any witness nor any document. This ground is also correct. It is indeed surprising that the courts below have passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff respondent without even recording the evidence of the plaintiff respondent, the cross-examination if any and also the evidence produced by the defendant appellant. Thus the entire procedure adopted by the courts below is vitiated. 6. This ground is also correct. It is indeed surprising that the courts below have passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff respondent without even recording the evidence of the plaintiff respondent, the cross-examination if any and also the evidence produced by the defendant appellant. Thus the entire procedure adopted by the courts below is vitiated. 6. Another ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Nagar Mahapalika had not been given the power to institute the suit under Sections 229-B/209 U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, I cannot agree with this contention. 7. The trial court's Judgment surfers from two serious and fatal errors which have been indicated above. It is also surprising that the learned Additional Commissioner has not tried to correct these errors. It is an established principle of law that in a regular suit the plaintiff must produce evidence to substantiate his case. In the present case, however the courts below have decreed the suit even though the plaintiff did not prove its case. The judgments of the courts below are thus substantially erroneous in law and cannot be sustained. 8. The result is that I hereby allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the courts below. The trial court is directed to decide the matter afresh after impleading the Sahakari Nirman Parishad through its present President and also after giving all the parties due opportunity to produce their oral and documentary evidence.