JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - Against concurrent findings of the courts below the defendant has come up in second appeal. Certain legal grounds which have not been raised in the pleadings were, however, allowed to be raised for the first time in this appeal and the appellant also filed some documents in support of such contentious. 2. It appears that the land in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff from the Zamindars Avdhesh Kumar and others under a sale deed dated 1st March, 1958 legality of which is challenged by the appellant. According to him the land in fact belonged to Maiku from whom the same was purchased by him under a sale deed dated 1-2-1966. He also claims to have obtained a licence from Avdhesh Kumar and others, the former Zamindars, on 25-7-1949. This last document was the matter of controversy and was challenged by the plaintiff as being totally forged. The courts below have recorded findings against the appellant and Sri Bhargava, appearing for him, has very candidly refrained from relying upon the same. 3. The appellant's contention is that since the sale deed had not been executed by all the zamindars it did not convey title to the plaintiff at all; that the property was the land within the meaning of U.P. Tenancy Act which applied to the area where it was situate and consequently the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession in respect thereof; and lastly it is urged that the period of limitation for such a suit for possession was only two years under the revenue law and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. 4. The sale deed Ex, 1 in plaintiff's favour clearly shows that it had been executed by Avdhesh Kumar, for himself and as holder of power of attorney on behalf of his brother Uttam Kumar and as a karkun of his 3rd brother Indra Kumar. The submission of Mr. Bhargava is that the sale may be legal as far as the interest of Avdhesh Kumar and Uttam Kumar are concerned but there also since the power of attorney has not been filed the plaintiff must be deemed to have failed in establishing the right of Avdhesh Kumar to make transfer on behalf of Uttam Kumar in that capacity. Bhargava is that the sale may be legal as far as the interest of Avdhesh Kumar and Uttam Kumar are concerned but there also since the power of attorney has not been filed the plaintiff must be deemed to have failed in establishing the right of Avdhesh Kumar to make transfer on behalf of Uttam Kumar in that capacity. As regards Inder Kumar, it is alleged that he is karkun and Avdhesh Kumar had no right to transfer the property to the extent of his share. The sale deed is of 1958 and the persons who were really entitled to question the correctness of the validity of the sale deed were Uttam Kumar and Indra Kumar, The appellant had no right to assail the same. Apart from this the appellant himself claimed to have obtained licence through Avdhesh Kumar and others from which it can easily be concluded that the title of Avdhesh Kumar and others as Zamindar is not disputed by them. It is a different matter that the court ultimately come to the conclusion that this Izazatnama or licence was a forged document. From the documents relied upon by the appellant also it is obvious that Banwari Lal and thereafter his sons Avdhesh Kumar etc. were the Zamindars of the area in question. In that capacity Avdhesh Kumar certainly had right to execute the deed of transfer. 5. The appellant alternatively claimed title through Maiku from whom he got the property by sale deed dated 1-2-1966. There is nothing on record to show that Maiku was the owner of the land in question. Documentary evidence that has been filed in this court pertains to plot No. 310/3 but this question was never raised before the court below. The plaintiff had filed suit in respect of specific piece of land with boundaries as mentioned at the foot of the plaint. No plot number was mentioned either in the plaintiff's sale deed or in the plaint. The defendant also never raised the question that the land pertains to plot No. 310. Under the circumstances the plaintiff never had an opportunity of producing the evidence to show that the land did not form part of plot No. 310. This question being essentially of fact cannot be entertained in Second Appeal, when raised for the first time. The defendant also never raised the question that the land pertains to plot No. 310. Under the circumstances the plaintiff never had an opportunity of producing the evidence to show that the land did not form part of plot No. 310. This question being essentially of fact cannot be entertained in Second Appeal, when raised for the first time. Boundaries of the land alleged to have been purchased by the defendant from Maiku also are exactly the same. There is no dispute about the identity of the land. Since Maiku has not been proved to be the owner of the laud and, admittedly, Avdhesh Kumar was Zamindar and had a right to make transfer and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was prior in time, it must follow that the plaintiff had title to the property; may be to the extent of ?rd and was therefore entitled to claim possession against the trespasser. The submission of the appellant in this behalf, therefore, is without any force and is rejected. 6. It is next urged that the land in question was the land within the meaning of U.P. Tenancy Act which still applies to the area. However, the land in question was situate within the town of Balsandi. To such an area obviously the U.P. Tenancy Act did not apply. Mr. Bhargava has tried to stress that the nature of the land is of pond in winch singhara crop used to be grown and, therefore, it was covered by the definition of land, as given in Section 3 (ii) of that Act. It may, however, be seen that the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed as also in the plaint go to show that a pond was situated only towards east of the disputed land and that too our in a portion of it. The eastern boundary of the property is mentioned as grove of Sheo Prasad and pond. From this description it cannot follow that the land in suit was itself a part of pond unless there was evidence to establish the same. On the evidence on record this fact is not established and I cannot, therefore, accept the submission made by the appellant's counsel. 7. From this description it cannot follow that the land in suit was itself a part of pond unless there was evidence to establish the same. On the evidence on record this fact is not established and I cannot, therefore, accept the submission made by the appellant's counsel. 7. It has been urged that when the appellant moved the court for permission to add grounds in the memo of appeal time was taken by the respondent to file documents and counter affidavit but none was filed. It is contained that from this it must be assumed that the land lies in plot No. 310 and also that it was in the nature of pond and thus covered by the definition of land. I find it difficult to accept this argument. Even if time was taken by the respondent and no effort was made by them to file any other affidavit or documents in rebuttal, the court has to examine the case on the evidence already on record. As I have said earlier the documents do not establish that, the disputed land lay in plot No. 310. 8. In view of my above conclusion that it was not land within the meaning of U.P. Tenancy Act the question of jurisdiction and limitation which were raised by the appellant also are of no consequence and must fail. 9. In the circumstances, I find no force in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.