DEOKI NANDAN, J. This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the plot of land in suit with the declaration that the plaintiffs were Bhumidhars thereof, and, in the alternative, in case the Court found that the plaintiffs were out of possession of any part or portion of the land in suit, for possession over the same. The suit was instituted in the year 1956. There were two sets of defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants second set were the Sir-holders of the land in suit. They mortgaged it with possession on the 21st day of Jeth of the year 1251-F. Equivalent to the year 1844-AD to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs who, in their turn, mortgaged it with possession with the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants first set by two deeds of mortgage, dated the 21st day of Sawan of the year 12 89-F and 6th day of Magh of the year 1291 F. A further loan of Rs. 67/- was taken by the plaintiffs predecessor-in- interest and tacked on to the said mortgagee by a bond dated the 28th July, 1900. The plaintiffs became the Sir-holders by lapse of time when the limitation for redemption of the mortgage made by the defendants second set in their favour expired in the year 1904 and on the 9th June 1952 a few days before the date of vesting fixed by the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the plaintiffs redeemed the mortgagees and the tacking on bond from the defendants first set and also obtained possession over the land in suit, the same day. It is witnessed by the Bharpai endorse ments on the back of the tacking on bond of 1900 and the two mortgage bonds of 1289 and 1291-F and all the three of them were returned in original to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the original mortgage bond of 1844 AD in their favour (Ext 4) in the mortgage bonds of 1289-F (Ext. 5), 1291-F (Ext. 6) and the tacking on bond with the Bharpai endorsement on the back (Ext. The plaintiffs filed the original mortgage bond of 1844 AD in their favour (Ext 4) in the mortgage bonds of 1289-F (Ext. 5), 1291-F (Ext. 6) and the tacking on bond with the Bharpai endorsement on the back (Ext. 7) and claimed that on the abolition of the zamindari they became the Bhumidhars of the land in suit and were in possession on the date of vesting and thereafter, but the deiendants disturbed their possession and threatened to dispossess them on the basis of the entries upto 1359-F in their favour on the basis of the mortgage under which they were in possession, but were wrongly recorded as sub-tenants. . The defendants first set, namely, Chandrika Pandey defendant No. 1 and Smt Duiari defendant No. 2 alone contested the suit by filing two separate written statements. They completely denied the mortgage in their favour or its redemption and instead claimed Adhivasi rights on the basis of the entries in 1350-F and 1359-F in their favour. The following eight issues were framed on the 10th September, 1959 by thetrial Court. 1. Whether plaintiffs are Bhumidhars of the plots in suit and are in possession as such ? 2. Whether the defendant No. 1 was adhivasi of plot No, 313/2 in suit on 20 10-1954? 3. Whether the defendant No. 1 is Sirdar of the plot No. 313/2 ? 4. Whether defendant No. 2 was adhivasi of plot No. 313/1 and 312 in suit ? 5. Whether the defendant, No. 2 is sirdar of plot No. 312 ? 6. If suit is barred by time ? 7. Is the suit under-valued and Court fee paid insufficient ? 8. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled ? On 14th October, 1959, the seventh issue was given as not pressed and a reference was made to the revenue Court for findings on issues Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. It was later on found that, in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court, no reference could have been made to the revenue Court after the 7th November, 1958 and the reference made on the 14th November, 1959 was incompetent. The file was accordingly received back without any finding from the revenue Court. By judgment dated 19th December, 1963 the trial Court dismissed the suit. The file was accordingly received back without any finding from the revenue Court. By judgment dated 19th December, 1963 the trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Court of the Civil Judge, Ballia, set aside the dismissal of the suit and remanded the case for a fresh trial in the light of the observations made and the directions given by it by judgment dated 8th July, 1966. On remand, the trial Court proceeded to frame the following six additional issues: 9. Whether the plots in suit were Sir of Goundher Singh, Rati Singh and Ajodhya Singh in 1251- F ? 10. Whether the aforesaid three persons mortgaged the disputed plots usufructuorily on 21 Jeth 1251 F. with Atma Singh ? 11. Whether the plaintiffs are descendants and heirs of Atma Singh ? 12. Whether the ancestors of the plaintiffs mortgaged the plots in suit usufructuorily with the ancestors of defendants 1 and 2 on 21 Sawan 1289 F. and 5 Magh 1291 F. ? 13. Whether the aforesaid two such mortgages were redeemed by the plaintiff on 9-6-1952 and not earlier and whether the plaintiffs received possession over the said plots ? 14. Whether the plaintiffs in possession and has been in possession since 9-6-1952. Its effect whether the plaintiff has acquired any right, Bhumidhari or Sirdari on the basis of his possession ? On issue No. 9, the trial Court found that the land in suit is the Sir of Gaundher Singh, Pati Singh and Ajodhya Singh, on issue No. 10 that Jawabar Singh, Ajodhya Singh and Pati Singh made a usufructuary mortgage of the plots in suit on 21st Jeth, 1251-F, in favour of Atma Singh on issue No. 11 that plaintiffs pedigree, as stated by them was duly proved and they were descendants of Atma Singh on issue No. 12 that the plots in suit were sub-mortgaged to the ancestors of the defendants first; on issue No. 13, that the said sub-mortgage was redeemed on 9th June, 1952 and not earlier and on issue No. 14 that the plaintiffs have become Bhumidhars as the Sir-holders of the land on account of the non-redemption of the mortgage dated 21st Jeth, 1251 F. within Limitation and, on the basis of their possession in 1252 F. and subsequent years, they had become sirdars. The trial Court then took up issue Nos. The trial Court then took up issue Nos. 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 together, and having already held that the plaintiffs had become Bhumidhars and were in possession, which was also the question raised by issue No. 1, it held on the remaining issues Nos. 2, 3,4 and 5 that the defendants were neither Adhivasis nor sirdars nor in possession of the land in suit. Their possession was as mortgagees. Issues No. 6 was answered in the negative and, holding on issue No. 8 that the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief claimed, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs. It is, however, not clear trom the judgment of the trial Court whether it had granted the relief of injunction or the alternative relief of possession or both. The lower appellate Court raised the following questions in the appeal before it: 1. Whether the sub-mortgage deeds were redeemed by the plaintiffs on 9th June, 1952 as alleged in the plaint. 2. Whether the plots in suit became Sir of the plaintiffs and the rights of the original mortgagors in the plots in suit ceased to exist as alleged in para 10 of the plaint. 3. Whether the plaintiffs became Bhumfdhars of the plots and entered in possession of the plots in suit. 4. Whether the defendants first set were Adhivasi and have now become Sirdars of the plots in suit. The lower appellate Court disbelieved the Bharpai endorsement and the thumb impression alleged to have been that of Chandrika Pandey on the back of the mortgage bonds and the tacking on bonds (Exts. 5. 6 and 71 and held that the plaintiffs have totally failed to establish that the said sub-mortgage deeds were redeemed by them on 9th June. 1952 as alleged in the plaint. On the second plaint, it held that the original mortgage of the 21st Jeth, 1251 F. was beyond redemption and the plots of land in suit had become the sir of the plaintiffs on the expiry of limitation of sixty years from the date of the execution of the original mortgage deed. Points Nos. 2 and 4. were taken up together for consideration by the lower appellate Court. Points Nos. 2 and 4. were taken up together for consideration by the lower appellate Court. It disbelieved the plaintiffs evidence and held that they are neither Bhumidhars nor in possession of the plots of land in suit and that the defendants first set were Adhivasis and have now become sirdars on the enforcements of Act No. 20 of 1954. The first question which was raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants was that the finding of the lower appellate Court, disbeliev ing the redemption of the sub-mortgages of 1289 F. and 1291 F. and the tacking on bond dated the 28th July 1900, (Exts. 5, 6 and 7) by the plaintiffs on the 9th July, 1952 and the delivering back of the possession over the plots of land to them that day before the date of vesting was perverse and vitiated in law. The crucial fact was that these mortgage bonds were produced by the plaintiffs and the denial even of the existence of the sub-mortgages by the defendants first set was on the face of Exts. 5, 6 and 7 on the face of their admission the earlier suit patently false. An examination of the two mortgage bonds and the tacking on bonds (Exts. 5, 6 and 7) shows that their genuineness is beyond question and the English note dated the 8th January, 1957 of the trial Court shows that the thumb impressions alleged to be those of Chandrika Pandey were deliberately blurred by the interested party after these three documents has been filed in Court. On an application 26-C moved by the plaintiffs, the learned Munsif noted "the documents concerned have been blurred recently. The ink is fresh kept in a sealed cover as prayed. " For the reasons given by the trial Court for its finding on issue No. 13, which I endorse and adopt in toto, I am of the view that the finding of the lower appellate Court on this point is perverse and cannot be sustained. The ink is fresh kept in a sealed cover as prayed. " For the reasons given by the trial Court for its finding on issue No. 13, which I endorse and adopt in toto, I am of the view that the finding of the lower appellate Court on this point is perverse and cannot be sustained. All the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case point to the inference that the sub-mortgage of the plots of land in suit made by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants first set was redeemed by the plaintiffs on the 9th June, 1952 a few days before and obviously in anticipation of the abolition of the Zamindari on the 1st July 1952 and the plaintiffs did enter into possession of the land that day Further for the reasons given by the trial Court for its finding on issue No. 14 which also I endorse and adopt in toto, I am of the view that the plaintiffs were in posses sion of the land in suit immediately before the abolition of Zamindari on the first July 1952 and continued in possession in 1360, 1361 and 1362 F and, were in possession on the date of the institution of the suit. The findings of the lower appellate Court to the contrary is again perverse. The next question which, therefore, arises in the case is whether the defendants first set could acquire any rights on the basis of the entries in J356f. and 1359 F. in their favour. There might have been difficulty in deciding this point, when the suit was decided by the learned Munsif in 1968 or by the lower appellate Court in 1961 but the three decisions of this Court in Radhey Slyam v. Rana 1969 A. L. J. 1059, Basdeo and others v. Board of Revenue and others A. I. R. 1974 All 338 (F. B.) and Pulloo v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1976 A. L. J. 288, leave no doubt that the entries in 1356 F. and 1359 F. in favour of the defendants first set could not have conferred Adhivasi rights on them. Moreover it is noticeable that the defendants first set were not in possession on the 1st July, 1952 and could have, if at all, claimed benefit of the provisions of clause (b) of Section 20 only if they had by an application made under Section 232 of the U. P. Zauindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, regained possession of the land as mortgagees, the defendants first set could not have been the plaintiffs tenant as tenants of Sir nor could they be sub-tenants even if the plaintiffs had themselves continued to be mortgagees of Sir rights. The defendants first set could not, therefore, acquire any Adhivasi rights under clause (a) of Section 20. I may in this connection, take note of four rent receipts which appear to have been filed by the defendants first set at a very late stage. They purported to be the receipts signed by Gauri Shankar Singh who was originally the second plaintiff. The evidence of Chandrika Pandey, which was led to prove these receipts on the 3rd December, 1969 and was the only evidence led by the parties after receiving back the papers of the case from the revenue Court, is wholly insufficient to prove these receipts and was rightly disbelieved by the learned Munsif. These receipts were filed on a very late stage. All of them are written in the same hand. The signatures of Gauri Shanker Singh are in the same handwriting in which the receipts are written. They come from the same receipt book No. J 1748. The first receipt is numbered 20 of that book. It shows receipt of Rs. 30/- on llth December, 1949 as the rent from Shiv Pujan Pandey for the years 1355 F. 1357 F. and 1358 F. at the rate of Rs. 10/-per year. The next receipt is numbered 21. That is in favour of Chandrika Pandey and is dated llth December, 1949. It is also for three years, namely, 1356 F. 1357 F. and 1358 F. and acknowledges the receipt of Rs. 9/- as the rent for those three years at the rate of Rs. 3/- per year. The third receipt is numbered 38. It is dated the 15th December 1952 and it is in favour of Mst. Dulari Kunwar widow of Shiv Pujan Pandey for the years 1359 F. and 1360 F. and acknowledges receipt of Rs. 20/ -. 9/- as the rent for those three years at the rate of Rs. 3/- per year. The third receipt is numbered 38. It is dated the 15th December 1952 and it is in favour of Mst. Dulari Kunwar widow of Shiv Pujan Pandey for the years 1359 F. and 1360 F. and acknowledges receipt of Rs. 20/ -. The fourth receipt No. 39 is again dated the 15th December, 1952 in favour of Chandrika Pandey for the years 1359 F for Rs. 6/ -. The handwriting and the ink and every thing of these receipts inspite of the gap of three years between the dates of the receipts Nos. 20 and 2i, on the one hand, and Nos. 38 and 39, on the other are strikingly similar. I have a suspicion that these receipts were forged at one silting and produced in the revenue Court on the 18th March, 1961 which is the date, which they bear on their front side. Under exhibit marks which appear to have been given to them by the revenue Court, in order to support the claim of adhivasi right the defendants first set on being advised that as mortgagees, they could not get any rights under clause (b) of Section 20 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. They are wholly inconsistent with the redemption of mortgage on the 9th June, 1952 and the creation of the sub-tenancy in 1356 F or immediately before that year has not been alleged in the written statement. On the other hand, Adhivasi rights were claimed in the written statement on the basis of being recorded occupants in 1356 F. and being in cultivatory possession on 1359 F. although it has been vaguely said that they were Shikmis of the land before the abolition of Zamindari. If they were mortgagees, they could not be Shikmis and that seems to be the reasons why even the existence of the mortgage was denied by the defendant first set. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the judgment of the trial Court was right and the decree of the lower appellate Court under appeal deserves to be set aside. I accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree under appeal and decree the suit declaring the plaintiffs to be the Bhumidhars of the land in suit. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the judgment of the trial Court was right and the decree of the lower appellate Court under appeal deserves to be set aside. I accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree under appeal and decree the suit declaring the plaintiffs to be the Bhumidhars of the land in suit. Since it appears that, during the pendency of the suit, certain orders were passed by the revenue authorities and the defendants first set were wrongly treated to be Adhivasi in possession in the compensation roll under Chapter IX-A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. a decree for recovery of possession over the land in suit is also passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants first set. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to their full costs throughout against the defendants first set. .