JUDGMENT D.S. Bajpai, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.78 passed by the Civil Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Appeal No, 42 of 1972 (Anand Swarup v. Ram Sewak and others) confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.7.72 passed by the Munsif, Sadar, Pratapgarh, in Regular Suit No. 6 of 1968 (Anand Swarup v. Ram Sewak and others). 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession over the disputed land as against the defendants and also claimed a decree for a sum of Rs. 50 as damages. The disputed land was shown in the siteplan indicated at the foot of the plaint which was subsequently amended as per court's order dated 6.2.71 so as to fully locate and identify it. The case of the plaintiff was that sometime the disputed land was situated in Khasra Kistwar No. 3014/1 (A) in the Town Area, Pratapgarh, and it was as far back as in the year 1906 in which the land was partitioned and the land in dispute fell in the abadi land in Mohalla Ali Asghar and its number was Ahata No. 748 which also included part of Ahata No. 745 which was entered in the name of Charan, son of Gauri barber, on which his house was situated. About 34 days before this partition Charan, son of Gauri barber, abandoned the Town Area, Pratapgarh and went out of station and the house fell to ground and became a Khandhar. As a consequence, it vested in Nazul and went to the proprietors. He alleged that on 25th December, 1952 he got an Izazatnama executed from tke Zamindars of the said Mohal, who were Shekh Ali Asghar, Pt. Bindeshwari Prasad and Bachau Ram, after giving them Nazrana of Rs. 51 and thereafter got a house constructed thereon for the use of his family and himself which was completed by the month of September, 1967. In the month of November, 1963, the plaintiff also purchased an Ahata from Mst. Radha, widow of Lachhman, through a saledeed and since then was in possession thereof. The plaintiff also got constructed a house in this Ahata which was completed in 1966. The plaintiff started living in his new house completed in 1967. In the month of November, 1963, the plaintiff also purchased an Ahata from Mst. Radha, widow of Lachhman, through a saledeed and since then was in possession thereof. The plaintiff also got constructed a house in this Ahata which was completed in 1966. The plaintiff started living in his new house completed in 1967. In these circumstances, the plaintiff stated that he had abandoned his ancestral house in village Lulhapur, Pargana and District Pratapgarh, which is 16 miles away from Pratapgarh city, and chose a new house in Pratapgarh Town Area, close to the city, where he was a Government employee in the Collectorate since last 19 years. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed their title through Charan who had abandoned the house at the time of settlement of 1906 and had no right or interest in the land in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed six issues, the first being to the effect as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the disputed land, and the second being as to whether the plaintiff ever was in possession before the expiry of limitation to file the suit. Issues nos. 3 and 4 related to undervaluation of the suit and shortage in payment of the court fee. Issue no. 6 pertained to the fact as to whether Charan, son of Gsuri, had abandoned the land in suit. Issue no. 5 related to the relief to which the plaintiff was entitled. After going through the oral and documentary evidence and considering the Commissioner's map and the report the learned trial court recorded a negative finding on issue nos. I and 2. Valuation of the suit and payment of the court fee was found to be correct but on the finding recorded on issue no. 6 read with finding on issues nos. I and 2 the suit was dismissed. 3. The plaintiff came in first appeal and the lower appellate court after taking into account the pleadings of the parties which comprised the pleading as subsequently amended to identify the land in dispute, the written statements filed by the defendants, including the one filed by defendant no. I and 2 the suit was dismissed. 3. The plaintiff came in first appeal and the lower appellate court after taking into account the pleadings of the parties which comprised the pleading as subsequently amended to identify the land in dispute, the written statements filed by the defendants, including the one filed by defendant no. 5 Nathu, son of Mahabir, from whom the defendants 1 to 4 claimed their title, and the plaintiff's replication thereto, as also the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, including the Commissioner's map and the report, did not find any substance in the appeal and dismissed it with costs. 4. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiff has come up in second appeal before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiffappellant and have been taken through the record, including oral and documentary evidence, as also the judgments of the two courts below. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the judgment of the lower appellate court is based on wrong assumptions regarding the plaintiff's case which the plaintiff never pleaded at any stage and that the learned lower appellate court fell into error in misreading the oral as also documentary evidence. In as far as this submission is concerned it will be seen that, as stated by the lower appellate court, the factum of Charan, son of Gauri, being the owner of the disputed land having been accepted by the plaintiff is apparently nowhere available from the pleadings of the plaintiff or from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and there is no gainsaying the fact that the learned lower appellate court fell in error in basing the findings thereafter on the assumption that Charan had any right or title in the property in dispute. The subsequent finding to the effect that after Charaa his sons, Bachcha and Mahabir, came in possession and were in possession for their life is also fallacious since Charan himself had no right at the time of settlement of 1906 and had deserted the place. The finding to the effect that the defendant no. 5, Nathu, who was said to be grandson of Bachcha, son of Charan, had a right to sell the property in favour of the defendant's nos. 1 to 4 as such is misfounded and based on no evidence. The finding to the effect that the defendant no. 5, Nathu, who was said to be grandson of Bachcha, son of Charan, had a right to sell the property in favour of the defendant's nos. 1 to 4 as such is misfounded and based on no evidence. Even otherwise there being other discrepancies in examination of the pleadings of the plaintiff, the judgment of the lower appellate court may not be sustained. The submission of the learned Counsel that there has been a misreading of evidence as is evident from the judgment of the lower appellate court and that it is based on assumptions which have no existence in law and that the learned lower appellate court has taken into consideration admissions of the plaintiff which were never made in pleadings or in evidence produced in support thereof, has force and has to be upheld. 6. The second submission made by the learned Counsel pertains to title of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 over the disputed land. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in support of their title the contesting defendants solely relied on the writtenstatement of defendant no. 5 but the said defendant no. 5 did not even enter the witnessbox and give his testimony about his right and title about the disputed land and, as such, it could not be accepted as conferring any title on the defendant no. 5 which he could transfer to defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The finding on issue no. 6 to that effect has been misconnected is, as such, to be accepted. 7. The third submission is that in as far as the Izazatnama (lease) by the Zamindars, Shiekh Ali Asghar, Pt. Bindeshwari Prasad and Bachau Ram, is concerned, it has been placed on record and exhibited. It has been duly proved by P.W. 2 Raghu Nath Sahai who had scribed it in his own hand, as stated by him before the court, and was admittedly written and executed and signed by all the above three coZamindars in his presence at the residence of Pt. Bmdeshwari Prasad, one of the CoZamindars of the Mohal. P.W. 4 Nawal Kishore, the Clerk of Pt. Bindeshwari Prasad, who was a practising lawyer in Pratapgarh Courts, has also been produced to indicate and prove that the document was signed by Pt. Bindeshwari Prasad at his residence in his presence. Bmdeshwari Prasad, one of the CoZamindars of the Mohal. P.W. 4 Nawal Kishore, the Clerk of Pt. Bindeshwari Prasad, who was a practising lawyer in Pratapgarh Courts, has also been produced to indicate and prove that the document was signed by Pt. Bindeshwari Prasad at his residence in his presence. The three executants (CoZamindars) who executed the deed of Izazatnama having since died, could not be produced. The scribe and the lone living marginal witness Raghu Nath Sahai having been produced and proved the document and having stated that it had been signed by all the three CoZamindars in his presence is enough evidence to prove the execution of the document and vests title in the plaintiff Anand Swarup. Evidence of Nawa Kishore P.W. 4 that Pt. Bindeshwar, Prasad had put his signatures to the document at his residence in his presence and he recognised his signature also cannot be discarded on the ground that Nawal Kishore did not know the language in which the document was signed. 8. In Gajraj and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others ( 1966 RD 114 ) this Court held: That it is not necessary that the person must know the language in which the document has been written. If he has deposed that the execution has been made in his presence and he had seen the executants putting his signature in his presence, it has been held that the document stands proved. This is the settled law on the question. The right and title of the plaintiff having been proved to the hilt over the disputed land, the judgments of the two courts below are based on misreading of evidence, wrong assumptions and misappreciation of settled law and have to be set aside. 9. In the result, the second appeal succeeds and is allowed, the plaintiff (Regular Suit No. 6 of 1968) stands decreed. The parties shall however, bear their own costs. (Appeal allowed)