JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - These are three appeals filed by the plaintiffs in two suits. The dispute was in respect of a piece of land within the city of Allahabad. 2. Jagdish Behari Lal Tandon, the plaintiff in suit no. 374 of 1965 claimed injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in making his constructions and having his wood stall over the disputed land. Abdul Ahbad was defendant no. 3 in that case. The other defendants who had obstructed were defendants nos. 1 and 2. The other suit no. 396 of 1965 was filed by Abdul Wahab. In that suit the plaintiff in the other suit alone was the defendant. 3. The case of the plaintiff Jagdish Behari Lal Tandon was that he had taken a lease from Farman Ali in the year 1964 for building purposes. The defendants nos. 1 and 2 were obstructing in raising constructions as well as placing his wood stall over the land. The foundations that had been dug could not be filled due to obstruction. The plaintiff in the other suit Abdul Wahab claimed that it was an old graveyard belonging to the family of Abad Husain. He claimed that there was a private mosque and old graves belonging to his family and the remaining area was attached to these constructions. He claimed that the defendant Jagdish Behari Lal Tandon be restrained by a permanent injunction from making constructions and from damaging the graves and the mosque built over it. The suit of Jagdish Behari Lal Tandon was decreed by the trial court whereas the suit of Abdul Wahab was dismissed. Three appeals were filed before the lower appellate court. One appeal was filed by Abdul Wahab against the dismissal of his suit no. 396 of 1965. The other appeal was filed by him against the decree passed against him in suit no. 374 of 1965 and the third appeal was filed by Barkatullah and others against the decree in suit no. 374 of 1965. All the appeals were consolidated and came up for hearing before Sri Maharaj Din, Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad. 4. After a perusal of the judgment and hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the judgment of the lower appellate court is not only cryptic, but lacks in the quality of the judgment in every manner. All the appeals were consolidated and came up for hearing before Sri Maharaj Din, Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad. 4. After a perusal of the judgment and hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the judgment of the lower appellate court is not only cryptic, but lacks in the quality of the judgment in every manner. The judgment purports to reverse the judgment of the suit of Jagdish Behari Lal Tandon and affirm the dismissal of the suit of Abdul Wahab. A volume of documentary and oral evidence was on the record which goes to show that different sets of the defendants and the plaintiffs examined at least 13 witnesses. The registered deeds of Waqf and transfers are also on record. Khasras and Khewats and the award of the Land Acquisition officer and receipts issued by local body are relevant and were placed on record. 5. Sri K.N. Tripathi appearing for Jagdish Behari Lal Tandon argued that the judgment was factually incorrect in as much, as much as the court below has made observations which are directly against the evidence on record. He pointed out that according to the court below Smt. Imteyazan Bibi had no right or interest in the building. That was against the record as Smt. Imteyazan Bibi is recorded in khewat Ex. 3 in the year 1326 Fasli and in the Khasra of 1358-F Ex. 4 her descendants including Farman Ali are recorded as Muntazim Waqf. The acquisition to which the court below has referred is of the year 1937. In 1919 when the Waqf was created Imteyazan Bibi had every right. 6. The second instance cited by the learned counsel is in the subsequent para where the court below mentioned that the waqf-deed did not relate to the laud in suit. That was not the case of any party nor that was proved by evidence on record. On the other and, a new case has been tried to be carved out by the court below. He further pointed out that Farman Ali was proved to be a Mutwalli and the court below has incorrectly observed that no independent witness was examined as from the statement of Rjaz Husain that was proved. He further pointed out that the respondent has nowhere admitted that the disputed laud was a graveyard. That observation was again against the record. He further pointed out that Farman Ali was proved to be a Mutwalli and the court below has incorrectly observed that no independent witness was examined as from the statement of Rjaz Husain that was proved. He further pointed out that the respondent has nowhere admitted that the disputed laud was a graveyard. That observation was again against the record. In the next sentence the court below observed that by the admission of the parties it was established beyond doubt that the disputed land was grave-yard used by the Musalmans of the same locality, that is again incorrect. There is no such admission on the part of either of the plaintiffs in the two suits. Thereafter abruptly a finding has been recorded in favour of Barkatullah. Various findings recorded by the trial court have not been up-set and unless those findings were set aside, the court below could not allow the appeal. 7. Sri M.A. Qadir appearing for Abdul Wahab stated that both these appeals have been dismissed by a small para saying that the necessary facts had not been pleaded in the pleadings. The trial court has framed issues on the rights of Abdul Wahab and evidence was led. In para 1 of the plaint in suit no. 396 of 1965, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of a portion of the disputed plot no. 882 Dariyabad. The appellant Abdul Wahab had claimed to the land by adverse possession as well and claimed to be the owner. Whether the ownership was by virtue of sale or otherwise is a question of evidence or if the court below was not satisfied with the state of pleadings it could have asked either for better proof or getting clarification under order 10 C.P.C. Various grounds and documents of the appellant Abdul Wahab were not even touched by the lower appellate court. I have also heard Sri S.A. Khan and Sri G.P. Bhargava for the respondent. I am not satisfied that the judgment of the court below at all meets the requirements of the judgment as contemplated by order 41 Rules 31 and 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment is no judgment in the eye of law and has to be set aside. 8. I am not satisfied that the judgment of the court below at all meets the requirements of the judgment as contemplated by order 41 Rules 31 and 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment is no judgment in the eye of law and has to be set aside. 8. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are set aside and the court below is directed to decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law and observations made above. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. 9. The learned counsel for the parties state that the record of the case has been burnt A part of the record has been received which is in a very bad state. Sri K.N. Tripathi has filed a paper book before this court. That paper book may be sent down to the court below and subject to the other additions or objections by the parties, the record may be reconstituted. As the case is quite old and the matter is quite important, the counsel for the parties agree that they shall appear before the District Judge, Allahabad on 15th March, 1982. The record of the case may be sent down to the District Judge Allahabad forthwith. On that date he may fix some date for hearing of the appeal and either retain the case on his file or may transfer to some other presiding officer competent to hear the same.