JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, against the judgment and decree passed by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 20-11-1981 confirming the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Basti dated 10-9-1981 through which the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and they were declared asamis of the land in dispute. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that plot No. 146 are 2 bigha 17 biswa is a tank on the spot. The plaintiff brought a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act stating that they have been growing Singhara in this tank from prior to zamindari abolition from the time of their ancestors and they have become bhumidhars. They, therefore, prayed to be declared bhumidhars and in the alternative claimed asami rights on the disputed land. The suit was contested by the Gaon Sabha and state alleging that the plaintiffs have never been in occupation of this tank nor did they ever grow Singhara therein, hence their suit is liable to be dismissed. After recording the evidence of both the parties the trial court decreed the suit and declared the plaintiff to be Asami. An appeal filed against that judgment was also dismissed, hence this second appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal on two counts firstly that the appeal was not properly presented because instead of being signed by the Pradhan it was signed by Ram Sumer Chaudhury Up-Pradhan who was not authorised to file the appeal and secondly on merits also the learned Additional Commissioner agreed with the findings of the trial court. In this court also the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appeal had not been properly presented before the Additional Commissioner, hence it was not maintainable because the memorandum of appeal was not signed by the Pradhan. I do not find any force in this argument or in the finding recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner. In this connection the memo of appeal shows that it was duly signed by the D.G.C. (R) who was authorised on behalf of the Gaon Sabha to file the appeal. I do not find any force in this argument or in the finding recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner. In this connection the memo of appeal shows that it was duly signed by the D.G.C. (R) who was authorised on behalf of the Gaon Sabha to file the appeal. The appeal was, therefore, properly presented and it could not be said to be not maintainable merely because the Up-Pradhan had signed it. Even if there had been no signatures of anybody except the D.G.C.(R) then also the appeal would have been remained competent and could not be dismissed as not properly filed. The copy of the resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha dated 1-7-77 is on the file of the trial court which shows that the L.M.C. had passed a resolution to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal before the Additional Commissioner could, therefore, be validly filed in pursuance of this resolution by the D.G.C. The learned Additional Commissioner did not correctly examine the validity of the resolution and the signatures of the D.G.C.(R) on the memorandum of appeal and that is, why he formed a different opinion which is against law. 5. As regards the merits of the case I find that both the trial court and the appellate court have taken a perverse view about the factum of possession of the plaintiff without any proper basis. The plaintiff could not produce any khataum or khasra of any year either prior to or subsequent to the consolidation operations in which their names might have been recorded as occupant or even as Singhara growers. Only a single khasra of 1334 fasli is on record in which one Framed S/o Bhawan caste Khatik is recorded in column No. 5 showing Singhara grover in column No. 10 but the plaintiffs have taken no pains to prove their connection or relationship with this Pramod. This entry, therefore, cannot help the plaintiff. The record, however, shows that the proceeding under Section 122-B were initiated against the plaintiff which were stayed by the order of the Tahsildar dated 1-10-1976 because the plaintiff had filed this suit. This document however would not prove the possession of the plaintiff before consolidation operation or at the time of the zamindari abolition. The record, however, shows that the proceeding under Section 122-B were initiated against the plaintiff which were stayed by the order of the Tahsildar dated 1-10-1976 because the plaintiff had filed this suit. This document however would not prove the possession of the plaintiff before consolidation operation or at the time of the zamindari abolition. The respondents-plaintiff have placed reliance on the report of the Supervisor Kanungo dated 24-10-1975 in which it was requested that the plaintiffs be admitted as asamis since they had been in possession for a long time. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that this report is a valuable piece of evidence of possession of the plaintiff. 7. I am afraid this report cannot form the basis of any evidence whatsoever about the possession of the plaintiff nor can it be deemed even to be admissible in evidence. If the plaintiffs wanted to get their case corroborated by the Supervisor Kanungo they should have produced him in evidence. Without producing him in the court his report cannot be read in evidence. The learned trial court has wrongly placed reliance on this document hence his finding can be said to be perverse. There is merely oral evidence in support of the plaintiff's case comprising of the statements of four witnesses. P.W. 4 is one Bhagwati Prasad who was Zamindar of the village whose name was recorded as Asami in khatauni 1366-69 fasli a copy of which is on record. In this very khatauni his name was ordered to be expunged by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 13-7-1961 and the name of Gaon Sabha was recorded. In view of this khatauni it cannot be said that Bhagwati Prasad was ever in possession of this tank as Zamindar or it was his Khudkast. He has stated that plaintiff Gurubux and others used to grow Singhara in this tank but he did not state that he had ever let out this tank to the plaintiff. Similarly he did not state that any land revenue was realised by him from the plaintiff. Consequently his testimony is of no avail to the plaintiff. The other two witnesses Mohd. Raja and Chhotey Lal who have tried to support Guru Bux P.W. 3 one of the plaintiffs are also of no help to the plaintiff because Gurubux himself did not state that he ever paid land revenue to the Zamindar. Consequently his testimony is of no avail to the plaintiff. The other two witnesses Mohd. Raja and Chhotey Lal who have tried to support Guru Bux P.W. 3 one of the plaintiffs are also of no help to the plaintiff because Gurubux himself did not state that he ever paid land revenue to the Zamindar. Gurubux further admitted that he did not file any objection before the consolidation authorities during the consolidation operation and the land was recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were ever in possession during or before the consolidation operation. It is likely that the plaintiffs might have started growing Singhara after consolidation operation but that would not invest any title because their possession would be no more than that of a trespasser. Consequently no rights could accrue to them and they cannot be declared bhumidhar, sirdar or an asami of the disputed tank. The name of Gaon Sabha is recorded over the tank, hence the plaintiffs even if they are in occupation are liable to be ejected therefrom. The plaintiffs miserably failed to prove their title but their suit was wrongly decreed and the learned Additional Commissioner also wrongly dismissed the appeal. 8. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgments and decree passed by both the courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.