JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find no merit in this appeal. 2. The suit was for possession over certain shops alleged to have been constructed by the Mutwalli on the land dedicated to it by one Imamuddin under a waqf deed dated 21-4-1965. According to the facts as they emerge from the evidence, plot Nos. 3499 and 3500 had been purchased by Imamuddin sometime in 1937 and were dedicated by him for the purposes of the waqf. Apart from this there was one other plot No. 3501 which was jointly held by Imamuddin and his brother Alauddin. Over a portion of plot No. 3501 Imamuddin constructed the mosque to which no objection was ever raised by his co-sharer brother. Subsequently, the shops were constructed over the two plots dedicated by Imamuddin. 3. Both the courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the basis of the Commissioner's survey report that the shops in dispute lay in plot No. 3499 and the disputed Rasta land also lay within the land dedicated by Imamuddin. Since the defendants were found in possession over the shops without plaintiffs' consent a decree for possession had been passed. The remaining portion of plot No. 3501 that may belong to Alauddin is not in dispute. If the mosque has been constructed over an area of Plot No. 3501 in excess of the area falling to Imamuddin share the remedy of Alauddin may be to seek partition but this was not done. Even preventive action to restrain the encroachment was not taken. 4. It is urged that the sale deeds of 1937 have not been duly proved. But under Section 90 of the Evidence Act as amended in this State a presumption attaches to an original registered document which was more than 20 years old that it had been duly executed and attested in the manner required by law and the signature and handwriting contained therein had been made and was written by such person as purports to have done so. The sale deed was, therefore, rightly admitted in evidence. 5. It was also urged that a statement made by defendant Alauddin under Order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. was misconstrued by the courts below. The sale deed was, therefore, rightly admitted in evidence. 5. It was also urged that a statement made by defendant Alauddin under Order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. was misconstrued by the courts below. This may be partly true but it does not affect the ultimate decision arrived at by the courts because there is overwhelming other evidence to substantiate the plaintiff's claim. 6. It was also pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal respondent No. 9 had died. An application for substitution was moved on 17-8-1983 which was allowed on 22-3-1985. Thereafter an application to recall the order was made and it was observed by this court in the order dated 23-4-85 that Bashir Ahmad had died even prior to the filing of the appeal in the court below and since the appeal was against a dead person it was not maintainable. However, it has not come in evidence that Bashir Ahmad had died during the trial of the suit so as to adversely affect the decision of the trial court. Even if Bashir Ahmad had died during the pendency of the appeal in the court below without bringing his heirs on record it will not make any difference. After the suit had been decreed it was for the aggrieved party to file the appeal but no such appeal had been filed either by him or his heirs. The trial court decree, therefore, had become final against him, on merits of this appeal in any way. 7. In view of the above since I have found that the appeal has no merit it fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.