BIHARI, JJ. ( 1 ) BINOD Kumar Roy and Lakshmi this is defendant No. 1s First appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16. 6. 1981 passed by Sri A. H. Ansari, Civil judge, Court No. 2, Dehradun decreeing Original Suit No. 213 of 1972 filed for (i) issuing a permanent injunction restraining it (Defendant No. 1) and its employees and agents from interfering in any manner with the possession of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 over the land known as Mohammedans Grave Yard situated at Kanwali Road, Dehradun described at the foot of the plaint and (ii) awarding costs. ( 2 ) THE suit was originally filed by Wakf masjid Khurbara, dehradun through Its Secretary Asgar Ali and 10 others whose names were expunged and in their place respondent No. 1 was substituted. His case in short was as follows: The land bearing Municipal No. 13, kanwali Road, Dehradun, measuring 18 bighas, is a Muslim Cemetery in respect of which no land revenue is payable; it is also exempt from assessment by the Municipality; it is waqf property registered with Defendant no. 2, U. P. Sunni Central Waqfs, as Waqf No. 20 Masjid Khurbura, Dehradun; defendant No. 2 constituted a Committee of Management for managing the properties of Waqf No. 20 aforesaid under Section 48 of the U. P. Muslim Waqf act on 13. 4. 1972 for a period of three years; the Committee was dissolved and the plaintiff has been appointed as Honorary Administrator of Anjuman Nasrat-ul-Islam, Dehradun vide order dated 29. 9. 4. 1972 for a period of three years; the Committee was dissolved and the plaintiff has been appointed as Honorary Administrator of Anjuman Nasrat-ul-Islam, Dehradun vide order dated 29. 9. 1976 and the Anjuman is in possession of the suit land and managing the same through the plaintiff; the land aforesaid is meant for burial place for the Muslims and has always been used as such till the communal disturbances in 1947, after which the Muslims have generally shifted to three or four specified localities; the present grave yard is not in use, as the other burial ground is available near to the aforesaid three or four specified localities, where the Mohammedan presently reside; the said tend had always been in possession of the Committee of Management of the Waqf Masjid, Khuarbura and is still in their possession; defendant No. 1 is threatening to establish a parking stand for private buses or to construct shops over the disputed land for shifting Sabji Mandi (vegetable market) from its present place even though it has no right to do so, as it is neither owner nor has any right, title or interest over the land in question; a few days bark, the employees of defendant No. 1 came to the land in question and tried to store bujary etc. and dumped four truck loads in a corner of the land in suit on or about 28. 7. 1972 and thus the plaintiff learnt of the intention of defendant No. l to construct either a parking stand for private buses or the shops aforesaid; without consent of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 has no right to enter into possession of the land in question which cannot be used for the purposes aforementioned, as it would injure the religious feeling of the mohammedan of Dehradun; forcible dispossession of the plaintiff from. the land in question and interference with their possession may lead to serious law and order problem; zishanullah and Asghar Ali met the Executive officer of defendant No. l on 1. 8. the land in question and interference with their possession may lead to serious law and order problem; zishanullah and Asghar Ali met the Executive officer of defendant No. l on 1. 8. 1972 and enquired of the reasons for collecting bujary but did not receive any satisfactory reply from them who told that the District Administration has directed the defendant No. 1 to either shift the Sabji Mandi or to provide parking stand for private buses in the land in suit; the officials of defendant No. 1 were requested by them not to interfere with the possession over the land in suit and not to shift the Sabji Mandi or the Parking stand, but they expressed their inability to do so in view of the decision taken by the District Traffic Advisory Committee, which is neither a legally constituted body nor has any right, title or interest in the land in suit who has no right to take unilateral decision to encroach upon the said land; any alleged decision taken by the District Traffic Advisory Committee or the District Administration is illegal, without jurisdiction and not binding on the defendant No. l; the employees of defendant no. 1 have no legal right to enforce the alleged illegal and void decision of the said Committee; the employees of defendant No. l are threatening to forcibly occupy the suit land by-7. 8. 1972 even though it has not been acquired either by defendant No. l or by the Government, which also cannot be acquired legally for any of the aforesaid two purposes; the employees of defendant No. 1 are intending to occupy the said land forcibly with the help of police force and have refused to desist from doing illegal acts, hence this suit without obtaining signatures of defendant No. 2, the matter being urgent and without serving a notice under Section 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act on defendant No. 1. ( 3 ) SHORTLY put, the case of the appellant was as follows: apart from usual denial it has been stated, inter alia, that it is wrong to say that the entire suit land bears municipal No. 62; the particulars given in the Schedule are wrong and not admitted; Plaintiff No. 1 or the waqf Committee are not juristic persons and the plaintiff has no right to sue; at a distance from the main Kanwali Road there are about three or four graves in an area of 1 and bigha and the land around the aforesaid graves was never used as kabristan or grave yard nor had it ever been a grave yard; the Mohammedans of Dehradun have no right to use the same as graveyard, which is also not in the possession of the Committee of Management of the Waqf masjid Khurbura; Mahanth, Darbar Sri Guru ram Rai Sahib, Dehradun is the owner in possession of the land in suit; the District Magistrate is the Chairman of the District Traffic advisory Committee, who advised the defendant No. 1 in regard to administration of traffic problems and the defendant No. 1, in the interest of the public safety and convenience of free traffic on the road, intended to have the place for parking of idle vehicles and was granted licence by Darbar Sri Guru Ram Rai sahib in the last week of July, 1972 for making arrangement for parking of idle vehicles on the said land; it is admitted that the employees of defendant No. 1 cleared a portion of the suit land, which is lying waste and unproductive of income and had removed shrubs etc. on 27th and 28th July, 1972 and laid singal openly with the permission of the owner, Darbar Sri guru Ram Rai sahib, Dehradun, for parking idle trucks and vehicles; few persons had enquired The Executive Officer of defendant No. 1 about the laying of singal, who were told that the land was cleared and singal has been laid for the purpose of parking idle trucks or vehicles with the permission of the owner: it is admitted that defendant No. 1 has not acquired the suit land; the suit is bad for want of proper notice under Section 326 of the Municipalities act; no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff against defendant No. 1; the suit is also bad for non joinder of State of U. P. , the District traffic Advisory Committee and Mahanth darbar Sri Guru Ram Sahib, Dehradun; and that the suit being false and vexatious is liable to be dismissed with costs. ( 4 ) FOLLOWING 12 Issues were framed by the Trial Court :-"1. Whether the plaintiff has no right of suit as alleged by the defendant? 2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 326 of the municipalities Act? 3. Whether the District Traffic Advisory Committee and the State of u. P. are necessary parties? 4. Whether Mahant Guru Ram Rai is a necessary party to the suit? ( 5 ) WHETHER the suit is over valued, if so, its effect? ( 6 ) WHETHER the suit as framed is not legally maintainable as alleged in para 1 of the additional written statement by the defendant No. 1? ( 7 ) WHETHER Sri Mohd. Akbar Farroqui has no right to get the suit pursued in his name and he has no right to the same? ( 8 ) TO what relief if any the plaintiff is entitled? ( 9 ) WHETHER the suit is over valued? ( 10 ) WHETHER the land in suit is waqf property as alleged by the plaintiff. If so, its effect? ( 11 ) WHETHER the defendant tried to take forcible possession of the property in suit? ( 12 ) WHETHER the Mahant Darbar Guru ram Rai is the owner and in possession of the property in suit?"5. ( 10 ) WHETHER the land in suit is waqf property as alleged by the plaintiff. If so, its effect? ( 11 ) WHETHER the defendant tried to take forcible possession of the property in suit? ( 12 ) WHETHER the Mahant Darbar Guru ram Rai is the owner and in possession of the property in suit?"5. The plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and Asghar All as P. W. 2 who claimed to be the Secretary of Wakf No. 20, Masjid Khurbura. He also got exhibited the following documents : (i) Certified copy of assessment of the property in dispute for the years 1. 4. 1958 to 31. 3. 1963-Ext. 1. (ii) Certified copy of assessment of the property in dispute for the years 1. 4. 1968 to 31. 3. 1973-Ext. 2. (iii) Letter No. Misc. /tax dated 11. 9. 1977 of the Tax Superintendent, Municipal Board to Abdul latif, Dehradun - Ext. 3. (iv) Plan - Ext. 4. (v) Copy of Khasra 1884 1291 Fasli-ext. 5. (vi) Copy of Letter No. 2932/ 4,5,8,10, 10a, 10,19, 20, 45, 49 cir of the Secretary, U. P. Sunni central Board of Waqf, Lucknow to Hakim Mohd. Akbar Farooqui, gandhi Road, Dehradun - Ext. 6. (vii) Letter No. 5161/20-Cir dated 13. 4. 1972-Ext. 7. (viii) Letter No. 570/20-B dated 24. 6. 1972-Ext. 8. 6. The appellant on the other liand, examined Cyan Singh Negi as D. W. 1. It also got exhibited the following documents : (i) Letter dated 24. 7. 1972 from E. O. Nagar Palika, Dehradun to the manager, Darbar Saheb - Ext. A1 (Page 74 of the paper Book) (ii) Certified copy of Khewat-Ext. A2 (Page 76 of the Paper Book) (iii) Original letter dated 25. 7. 1972 from Darbar Sri Guru Ram Rai saheb signed by Om Narain tankha, Manager to the Executive officer, City Board, Dehradun-ext. A3 (Page 73 of the Paper book)7. Issue no. 1 was adjudicated by order dated 1. 8. 1973 of the llnd Additional Civil judge, Dehradun. It was held that plaintiff Nos. 2 to 11 had right to file the suit, whereas no suit could have been filed in the name of plaintiff No. 1, not being a legal person, and thus it be deleted from the array of the plaintiffs and ordered accordingly. By order dated 20. 5. It was held that plaintiff Nos. 2 to 11 had right to file the suit, whereas no suit could have been filed in the name of plaintiff No. 1, not being a legal person, and thus it be deleted from the array of the plaintiffs and ordered accordingly. By order dated 20. 5. 1974 issue No. 3 was adjudicated in this term that the District Traffic Administrate Committee is not a necessary party. By the same order while adjudicating Issue No. 4, it was held that mahant Guru Ram Das Rai is also not a necessary party to the suit. Issue No. 5 was disposed of by order dated 26. 4. 1975. By order dated 10. 3. 1979 it was held, while adjudicating Issue No. 9, that the suit is not over-valued. By the impugned judgment in relation to issue No. 2 it was held that no notice, in the circumstances of the case, was necessary to be given and thus, the suit is not bad; in relation to Issue No. 6 it was held that the suit is legally maintainable, as it was filed by the then secretary Sri Asghar Ali, who was authorised, as it appears from Paper No. 30 Ka/1 and 7 ka/1 issued by the Board; in relation to Issue no. 10 it was held that the land in suit is a waqf property; in relation to Issue No. 12 it was held that Mahant Darbar Sri Guru Ram rai Sahib is not owner and not in possession of the suit property, whereas in the settlement record filed it has been shown as a waqf property and Mohammedans grave yard and in the municipal assessment the plaintiff has, been shown as Manager Kaburistan; in relation to issue No. 11 it was held that defendant No. 1 is trying to take steps for possession of the property in suit; and that in relation to Issue no. 8 it was held that the plaintiff has proved his case and is entitled to the reliefs claimed. The Submissions :8. 8 it was held that the plaintiff has proved his case and is entitled to the reliefs claimed. The Submissions :8. Sri L. P. Naithani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended as follows : - The Court below committed an error in not accepting the appellants case that Mahant Guru Ram Rai Sahib was the owner, who authorised the appellant to make construction over the land in question in regard to which the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 failed to prove title and consequently the findi ings are vitiated. 9. Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, on the other hand, contended that the arguments made by Sri Naithani have no legs to stand for the reasons that no document worth the name was produced by the appellant in the Court below to show title and possession of Mahant guru Ram Rai Sahib, rather on the contrary, the plaintiff exhibited documents and adduced oral evidence supporting its case in regard to the disputed land being a graveyard and a wakf property both, and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost. He also contended that the appellant not having included the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the plaintiff which have been referred to and relied upon while recording findings of fact, in the paper book, cannot assail them. Our Findings:10. Unfortunately the Memorandum of this Appeal which is at Pages 1 to 9 of the paper Book does not contain any objection against the finding recorded on merits nor has the appellant included in its Paper Book the deposition of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the documents exhibited by the plaintiffs. Under our rules of the Court they are necessary papers inasmuch as unless they are referred to an appellant cannot attack any finding recorded by tlie Trial Court which is based on oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. This legal position is based on a conjoint reading of Rule 1 (a) and Rule 2 (h) of Chapter XIII which reads thus : "chapter XIII paper BOOK IN FIRST APPEAL x X X X X "rule l (a) "necessary paper means paper mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of rule 2. This legal position is based on a conjoint reading of Rule 1 (a) and Rule 2 (h) of Chapter XIII which reads thus : "chapter XIII paper BOOK IN FIRST APPEAL x X X X X "rule l (a) "necessary paper means paper mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of rule 2. " x X X X X "rule 2 (h) Such evidence, oral or documentary, or other papers as the appellant may wish to refer to;" the appellant must thank itself in not including the evidence adduced by the plaintiff on the basis of which findings have been recorded in favour of the plaintiff by the Trial court and thus cannot challenge them. 11. However, in the interest of justice we have carefully gone through the record ourselves. The plaintiffs Have brought on record the Municipal records Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 which prove their case. P. Ws. 1 and 2 both have proved the suit property to be Kabristan and wakf property. The documents filed prove it. The Court below has not committed any error in accepting the first two documents and recording its finding after consideration of even oral evidence adduced by the parties. In fact in ext. A-1 the Executive Officer has stated that the vacant lands around the Kabristan be utilised for stand. Having gone through the evidence, we do not find that the Court below has committed any error in accepting the testimony of the plaintiffs witnesses. 12. In fact on going through the written statement we find that the appellant had not claimed title to and/or possession of the land in question. In fact objection No. 6 of the memorandum of Appeal states that the appellant is not claiming ownership of the property. It is clear that some of the employees of the appellant had gone and put some articles on the land in question, which cannot be held that in doing so they had dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land. It. is well settled that fugitive acts do not constitute possession. In fact no case has been set up by the appellant that it is having title. ( 13 ) WE have gone through the evidence of D. W. 1 (at Pages 52 to 64 of the Paper book ). It. is well settled that fugitive acts do not constitute possession. In fact no case has been set up by the appellant that it is having title. ( 13 ) WE have gone through the evidence of D. W. 1 (at Pages 52 to 64 of the Paper book ). We do not think that the Trial Court has committed any error in not accepting the testimony of the sole witness examined by the appellant, who was an Ex-employee of the- appellant and had not said a word about acquisition of title of the appellant of the suit land on the basis of the alleged authority issued by Mahanth Guru Ram Rai Sahib rather has categorically stated that he has not claimed title of the disputed property - ("hamne jamin to apni milkiyat nahim battai" ). This witness has stated that there is only one graveyard around which there are three-four hundred huts for a long time which is in variance to the fact stated in the written statement wherein existence of 3-4 graveyards have been mentioned. In the very first sentence of cross examination this witness has stated that he does not know as to what is the number of this Kabristan in the municipal Board which means that he tacitly admits the existence of the Kabristan. Lastly he has stated that he has not seen documents of title of that land on which Bajri was kept. Few sentences earlier he has stated that the land on which Bajri was put does not belong to the Municipal Board. No document worth the name has been brought on the record to show the title of Mahanth Guru Flam Rai Sahib. ( 14 ) WE are of the view that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. We are further of the view that in the event the appellant is not restrained, the nature of the land will definitely undergo a change and thereby cause such injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, we affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court clarifying that since darbar Sri Guru Ram Rai Sahib was not impleaded as a party to the suit, the judgment will not be binding on it. ( 16 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we dismiss this appeal. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, we affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court clarifying that since darbar Sri Guru Ram Rai Sahib was not impleaded as a party to the suit, the judgment will not be binding on it. ( 16 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we dismiss this appeal. ( 17 ) IN the peculiar facts- and circumstances without there being any order as to cost. Appeal dismissed. .