JUDGMENT O.P. Varma, J. - This second appeal has been directed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 8-4-1974 of the learned Civil & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs-respondents and decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction as well as recovery of possession over the land in dispute. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that a portion admeasuring 0.16 acre, shown by letters ABCDEFG in the plaint map out of plot no. 767 admeasuring 0.31 acre that belonged to Waqf, was taken under oral lease by the father of the plaintiffs for residential purpose from the Mutwalli of the Waqf in the year 1915 and since then the father of the plaintiffs remained in possession of the aforesaid land. On 27-5-1963, the plaintiffs obtained an unregistered lease deed also from the then Mutwalli of the Waqf. It is said that the defendants some-how managed to obtain a lease-deed regarding 0.10 acre out of the remaining area i.e. 0.15 acre of plot no. 767 from the Waqf and on the basis thereof they threatened to take possession of the portion, belonging to the plaintiffs. That gave rise to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It is averred that during the said proceedings, defendant no. 1 constructed a Kotha shown by letters PGDR which situated within the disputed land, shown by letters AGHL. It is further contended that the aforesaid proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. terminated and in papers possession over the area 0.16 acre was stated to have been delivered to the plaintiffs but in fact only portion measuring 0.06 acre, was released to the plaintiffs and on the remaining area i.e. 0.10 acre the defendants continued in possession. 3. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and it was stated that the disputed land measuring 0.10 acre was taken on lease by their father about 25 years ago, on rent of Rs. 2/- per annum and since then the defendants and their father remained in possession over the suit land. It was averred that on 23-4-1970 the defendant no. 1 got a registered lease-deed executed from the Mutwalli of the Waqf. It is also said that a Kotha and Chopper were constructed on the suit land when the same was acquired about 25 years ago. It was averred that on 23-4-1970 the defendant no. 1 got a registered lease-deed executed from the Mutwalli of the Waqf. It is also said that a Kotha and Chopper were constructed on the suit land when the same was acquired about 25 years ago. The trial court framed as many as 9 issues and held that since the unregistered lease deed dated 27-5-1963 pertained to a permanent lease which could not have been executed by a Mutwalli without the permission of the court, no title could be derived by the plaintiffs under the said lease-deed Ext. 3. Since the lease-deed creating permanent lease could not have been executed without the permission of the court by the Mutwalli, the trial court dismissed the case of the plaintiffs. The trial court, however, clearly held that a perusal of the evidence of the parties clearly shows that the construction of the Kotha in dispute was not old one and the possession of the defendants was not old. It was held that the case of the defendants that new constructions were made on the site of old constructions, was not correct. The lower appellate court held that from the evidence of to the parties and from the appreciation of the evidence by the trial court, possessory title of the plaintiffs was clearly established and, therefore, they are entitled to the decree prayed for. This is how the judgment and decree of the trial court were reversed and the suit of the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction was decreed by the lower appellate court. 4. I have heard Sri S. N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. The submissions of Shri Gupta are as follows : 1. That oral evidence of the plaintiffs was not at all discussed by the courts below and, therefore, the finding on the point of possessory title is wholly untenable ; and 2. That no issue on possessory title was framed and, therefore, the trial was vitiated ; 3. As the trial court and the lower appellate court gave conflicting decisions, it was all the more necessary for the lower appellate court to discuss the oral evidence of the plaintiffs threadbare. 5. That no issue on possessory title was framed and, therefore, the trial was vitiated ; 3. As the trial court and the lower appellate court gave conflicting decisions, it was all the more necessary for the lower appellate court to discuss the oral evidence of the plaintiffs threadbare. 5. Now it is well settled that if the plaintiff fails to establish title but succeeds in establishing a long possession then his case on the basis of possessory title can be decreed except against the true owner unless a better title is proved by the defendant. In this case the courts below appreciated the oral evidence. Simply because the oral evidence of the plaintiffs was not discussed at a great length, it cannot be said that the courts below omitted to examine the oral evidence of the plaintiffs or they ignored the oral evidence of the parties. It is amply clear from the judgments of the courts below that they did appreciate the oral evidence of the parties and then concluded that the theory of the defendants that their father acquired the suit land about 25 years before and then they constructed a Kotha and Chopper was wrong. It was clearly held that the case of the defendants that the new constructions were made on the site of the old one, was not believable. These are the findings of fact and they cannot be questioned in this second appeal. When concurrent findings of fact are recorded by the courts below, even if a different inference can be drawn from the evidence, the law is that no interference should be made in second appeal. Simply because the courts below have not referred to the witnesses examined by the parties in somewhat great length, it cannot be said that the evidence was not considered and the conclusion reached at by the courts below was not based on the oral evidence of the parties. When both the parties have entered into evidence and led evidence on the point of possession then no importance can be attached to the argument that no issue on possessory title was framed by the trial court. In civil law, the case has to be decided on the preponderance of the probabilities. The courts below clearly held that the record showed that the case of the plaintiffs was more probable than the case of the defendants. In civil law, the case has to be decided on the preponderance of the probabilities. The courts below clearly held that the record showed that the case of the plaintiffs was more probable than the case of the defendants. In this case, both the parties have set up almost a parallel case, inasmuch as both stated that in the beginning they acquired land from the Mutwalli of the waqf without any lease deed and later on they got the lease-deed executed from the Mutwalli and that in the beginning the land was acquired by their father and they stepped into shoes of their father on the latter's death. When the courts below clearly found that the evidence clearly pointed out that the defendants did not remain in possession from before and whatever constructions he raised they were new, then the case of plaintiffs becomes more probable and the findings of the lower appellate court on the point of possessory title cannot be disturbed merely for the reason that no specific issue was framed and the evidence of the plaintiffs was not discussed in detail in the judgment. 6. Then it was argued by Sri Gupta that the case was not maintainable as no notice under Section 66 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 (briefly the Act) was issued to the board. Sub-section (I) of Section 66 of the Act says that in every suit or proceedings relating to the title to Waqf property or the right of a Mutwalli, the court shall issue notice to the board at the cost of the plaintiff. In this case the title of the Waqf property or the right of a Mutwalli is not in dispute and, therefore, no notice is necessary. Admittedly, both the parties claimed to have taken the land in suit under lease from one and the same waqf and so the title to Waqf property or the right of a Mutwalli is not in jeopardy. Sub-section (2) of the Act will apply when any Waqf property is notified for a sale in execution of the decree of a civil court or for recovery of any revenue or tax etc. due to the Government or any local authority. Sub-section (2) of the Act will apply when any Waqf property is notified for a sale in execution of the decree of a civil court or for recovery of any revenue or tax etc. due to the Government or any local authority. In that situation notice will have to be issued to the board by the court and in the absence of such a notice the sale shall be declared void under Sub-section (4) of the Act. So on account of the absence of any notice envisaged by sub-section (1) of the Act, the decree will not become void under sub-section (3) of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.