JUDGMENT 1. - This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar reversing the judgment and decree of Munsif, Tijara, Kishangarh Bas and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession and injunction. 2. The plaintiff is Mutwali and after taking permission from the Wakf Board, filed the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for possession and injunction against the defendant-respondent, alleging that in Village Kot Kasim, there is an open land measuring 41 yards North-South and 30 Yards East-West, which is known as 'Takia' being a Wakf Property, and since the defendant had encroached upon a portion of this land, he filed the present suit for possession and injunction. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement stating inter-alia that he had been in possession of a plot of land which he had purchased from Gram Panchayat, Kot Kasim by virtue of a Patta dated 18-11-1964 (Ex. A-1), and that he has not a encroached upon any land of the Takia. 4. The learned trial court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. On appeal filed by the defendant, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff appellant. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case as also gone through the judgments of the two courts below. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has very vehemently argued that the learned Additional District Judge should not have discarded (Ex. 1) which is a very old document of the year 1191 Hizari San. He has further submitted that the so called sale deed or the Patta granted to the defendant by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kot Kasim is illegal and void and cannot be relied upon and does not give any right to the defendant as it is against the Panchayat Law and is not in the form prescribed and the procedure given in the Act was not followed. Therefore, his appeal should be allowed. He has further argued that the land did not belong to the Panchayat and no proceedings of escheat were taken. Therefore, his appeal should be allowed. He has further argued that the land did not belong to the Panchayat and no proceedings of escheat were taken. In this connection, he has placed reliance on Ram Prasad v. Gram Panchayat, Bhadana 1957 RLW 11 . 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that this court should not interfere in second appeal because there is no question of law involved in this appeal and the decision of the first appellate court is based on appreciation of evidence and is a pure finding of fact. He has further submitted that even if this finding of fact is erroneous, this court cannot interfere in second appeal and he has placed reliance on V. Ramchandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar and Anr., ( AIR 1963 SC 302 ) and Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commissioner of Ranchi, AIR 1981 SC 707 . He has further submitted that Ex. 1 is not the original document and therefore, no presumption could be raised Under Section 90 of the Evidence Act and in this connection, he has placed reliance on Harihar Prasad Singh and Anr. v. Deo Narain Prasad and Anr. AIR 1956 SC 305 . He has also submitted that the defendant is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration from the Gram Panchayat, Kot Kasim and that all the procedure as prescribed in the Panchayat Act had been observed as is clearly mentioned in Patta Ex. A1 itself and therefore, the defendant has neither trespassed nor encroached upon any part of the Takia. He has further submitted that the plaintiff has not prayed for cancellation of the Patta granted in favour of the defendant and that Panchayat was not made a party to the suit inspite of an application having been filed on behalf of the defendant that the Panchayat should also be impleaded as a party. He further submitted that the decision of the learned court below in not impleading the Panchayat as a party was erroneous. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and specially the submissions made before me. 9. The plaintiff in his statement before the court has admitted in cross-examination that Ex. 1 is a copy from the Register of Wakfs which was taken by his ancestor Shafiuddin from the Register and that it is not mentioned in Ex. 1 that is a copy. 9. The plaintiff in his statement before the court has admitted in cross-examination that Ex. 1 is a copy from the Register of Wakfs which was taken by his ancestor Shafiuddin from the Register and that it is not mentioned in Ex. 1 that is a copy. Since this document was obtained by the ancestors he was unable to say as to when it was taken. The plaintiff has also produced Ex. 2 which is true copy of the list of the Wakf Properties where in the area of the Takia has been given as under: East: 100 ft. West: 100 ft. North: 61 ft. South: 61 ft. 10. In cross-examination, the plaintiff has further admitted that the land of Takia was beyond the well of Nahar Khan about 50 yards towards South but he has filed the suit only upto the North well of Nahar Khan's well. Thus, we find that there is some difference in the description of the Takia land between Ex. 1 and Ex, 2. Ex. 1 being not original, no presumption can be raised Under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. Section 57 of the Registration Act relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant will also not come to his rescue because Ex. 1 is not the certified copy of a registered document. 11. The defendant has examined himself and has stated on oath that he had taken this plot of land on rent from the Panchayat and lateron, he purchased this plot of land after paying a sum of Rs. 200/-. Ex. A-1 is the Patta granted by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kot Kasim. In the Patta, it has been mentioned that the procedure prescribed under the Panchayat Act has been followed and that amount of Rs. 200/- was deposited in the Panchayat account books and that the Panchayat had handed over possession of this plot of land to the defendant Udmiram. 12. To this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar in second appeal. Thus, there appears has no force and is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******