Judgment This second appeal, preferred under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-02-2003, passed in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2000 by learned A8ditional District Judge / III Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the said appeal is dismissed and judgement and decree dated 24-07-2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 244 of 1997 passed by learned trial court was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that appellant (plaintiff) is tenure holder and resident of Village Sakalniya, Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. According to plaint case, the defendant Dharam Veer Singh, on 02-12-1988 executed an agreement in favour of plaintiff to sell land measuring 05 Bighas in respect of plot No. 188/3, 11 Bighas 10 Biswa in respect of plot No. 193/1 M, 10 Bighas in respect of plot No. 193/2, 09 Bighas in respect of plot No. 193/2 M, and 10 Bighas 3 Biswa in respect of plot No. 193/3 (total land measuring 45 Bighas 13 Biswa) of the aforesaid village. The said agreement was registered before the Sub Registrar, Bazpur. It is pleaded by the plaintiff (appellant) that he Is in possession of these plots since then. The dispute relates to the plot No. 188/3regarding which it is pleaded that by mistake it was mentioned as plot No. 188/5 in the agreement. It is further pleaded that as soon as the mistake was detected, on 27-06-1989, a rectification eldorsement was got recorded in a stamp paper, in which the defendant Dharam Veer Singh clarified that It was plot No. 188/3, agreed to be sold, which was by mistake mentioned as 188/5 in the agreement, and possession of said land too has been delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that in plot No. 188/3 his tube well is installed in a small room of 8 feet x 8 feet apart from his 07 Eucalyptus, 50 Sheesham and 2 Babool trees standing thereon. The defendant, taking advantage of c1erical'f11istake in the agreement, now wants to trespass over the aforesaid land in dispute, though earlier in a suit No. 53 of 1989 filed by one Ashok against the present plaintiff in respect of disputed land, the defendant Dharam Veer Singh filed an affidavit that he has sold 05 Bigha land of plot No. 188/3. The defendant, taking advantage of c1erical'f11istake in the agreement, now wants to trespass over the aforesaid land in dispute, though earlier in a suit No. 53 of 1989 filed by one Ashok against the present plaintiff in respect of disputed land, the defendant Dharam Veer Singh filed an affidavit that he has sold 05 Bigha land of plot No. 188/3. It is also alleged that the Advocate Commissioner also, on inspection found the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in question. On 02-12-1997 defendant alongwith his relatives made attempt to take forcible possession of the disputed land. In the circumstances the plaintiff instituted the suit for injunction against defendant, restraining him and his family members from taking forcible possession, or interfering In possession of the plaintiff in respect of land measuring 05 Bigha of plot No. 188/3. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement wherein execution of agreement of sale in respect of disputed land is denied. It is also denied that the defendant delivered possession of the land of plot No. 188/3 to the plaintiff. It is also not admitted to the defendant that he signed rectification on any stamp paper. As to the alleged affidavit filed in suit No. 53 of 1989, it is pleaded by the defendant that he was not a party to said suit. Denying possession of plaintiff over the land in suit, it has been further pleaded that in fact defendant was recorded in revenue records in Class-4 (Varg-4) in respect of plot No. 188/3 and had no right to sell said land. The alleged rectification deed has been challenged on the ground that the same is not a registered document. Alleging that the defendant had a litigation with father of the plaintiff, earlier in civil suit No. 69 of 1978, an appeal arising thereof was still pending in the High Court at the time of institution of the present suit. Lastly, it is pleaded in the written statement that the agreement of sale in question is void and the suit is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963. 4. Learned trial court, after framing the issues, recording the evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the present suit No. 244 of 1997 on 24-072000 holding that the agreement in question is void and the plaintiff is not in possession of land in dispute. 4. Learned trial court, after framing the issues, recording the evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the present suit No. 244 of 1997 on 24-072000 holding that the agreement in question is void and the plaintiff is not in possession of land in dispute. Aggrieved by which the plaintiff preferred civil appeal No. 50 of 2000 which was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 5. This second appeal was admitted on suggested substantial questions of law in memo or appeal, which are as under: 1. Whether, the admission of the respondent about delivery of possession of the disputed land to the appellant contained in two documents was binding on the respondent within the meaning of Section 17 to 21 and Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ? 2. Whether, the judgment of revenue court about the rights, title, interest and possession was binding in the civil court within the meaning of Section 330 and 331 of the V.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as the competent revenue court had held cultivatory possession of the appellant on the land in dispute ? 3. Whether, a person in possession can claim injunction against interference with his possession even against rightful owner ? 4. Whether, the concurrent findings of fact of courts below are based completely ignoring the evidence and material on record ? 6. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Answer to substantial question of law NO.1 : 7. Admittedly, defendant Dharam Veer Singh was in possession of plot No. 188/3 and he was recorded in Class-4 (Varg-4) in revenue records. A person recorded in Varg-4 is an unauthorized occupant of land who has no right to transfer the land. Disputed agreement of sale dated 02-12-1988 (paper No. 75-A/39 and 75-A/40 in trial court's record) shows that the aforesaid defendant agreed to sell land of plot No. 188/5 (OS Bigha), 193/1 M (11 Bigha 10 Biswa), 193/2 (10 Bigha), 193/2 M (09 Blgha) and 193/3 (10 Bigha 3 Blswa), total 45 Bigha 13 Biswa in Village Sakainiya. This agreement is signed by plaintiff and also by defendant (though disputed by him). and is a registered document. The endorsement of Sub Registrar in the deed shows that out of total sale consideration of Rs. 1.71.000/- an amount of Rs. 1.50,000/- is paid by the plaintiff to the defendant Dharam Veer Singh. This agreement is signed by plaintiff and also by defendant (though disputed by him). and is a registered document. The endorsement of Sub Registrar in the deed shows that out of total sale consideration of Rs. 1.71.000/- an amount of Rs. 1.50,000/- is paid by the plaintiff to the defendant Dharam Veer Singh. From the contents of the agreement. It is clear that the transferor has mentioned that at present he has no right to transfer the land. as such. he is executing the agreement. and when he gets right he would execute sale deed. It Is also clear from the pleadings of parties that there is no dispute as to the other plot numbers except regarding plot No. 188. The plaintiff's case Is that due to mistake plot No. 188/5 was mentioned in the agreement and actually it should have been plot No. "188/3". Paper No. 75-N41. Paper No. 75-A/42 Is the deed dated 27-06-1989 in a stamp paper purported to have been executed by the defendant Dharam Veer Singh that in the agreement of sale by mistake plot No. "188/5" is mentioned In place of "188/3" and also that now possession of said land has also been delivered. However, this document is not registered unlike the earlier one. By oral evidence both documents are proved by the plaintiff. And this document has been relied as admission of the defendant regarding mistake in the agreement of sale executed on 02-12-1988. Not only this, there is yet another document. a certified copy of affidavit dated 04-07-1989 (paper No. 75-c/32) which appears to have been filed by present defendant In a suit No. 53/1989 Instituted by one Ashok Kumar against Desh Raj (present plaintiff-appellant). In this document the present defendant-respondent has admitted having sold the land measuring 05 Bigha of plot No. 188/3 to Desh Raj and possession has been delivered to him. Certainly. if genuine this affidavit is filed by Dharam Veer Singh about eight years before the present litigation started. As such. plaintiff's oral evidence on this point gets corroborated by two aforesaid admission . 8. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the above alleged admission cannot be read in evidence as the rectification deed was not registered and the affidavit was not proved by primary evidence. As such. plaintiff's oral evidence on this point gets corroborated by two aforesaid admission . 8. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the above alleged admission cannot be read in evidence as the rectification deed was not registered and the affidavit was not proved by primary evidence. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the reason that the instrument dated 27-06-1989 is neither agreement executed by both the parties nor Is a sale deed. It is merely written endorsement admitting the clerical mistake In the deed and the fact that the possession has been transferred to the plaintiff. Similarly, the certified copy of affidavit dated 04-07-1989, in earlier suit filed by one Ashok Kumar In support of present plaintiff that deponent Dharam Veer Singh (present defendant) has transferred possession of plot No. 188/3 to Desh Raj Is admission. No rights or interest has been transferred nor agreed to transfer by the rectification memo, as such, it was not required to be registered. As to the affidavit filed in Suit No. 53 of 1989 the said document after being filed in the court was a public document and its certified copy issued by court can very well be read in evidence. 9. In the circumstances, since there was clear admission on the part of the defendant relating to transfer of possession to the plaintiff. he cannot retreat from such admission after long eight years. Learned counsel for defendants respondent argued that the defendant being in occupation in c1ass-4 had no right to transfer the land. True, but after delivery of possession to plaintiff by unauthorized occupant he cannot say that the plaintiff is not in possession. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in view of admissions as discussed above, the defendant is barred by principle of estoppel contained In Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from stating that he has not delivered possession to the plaintiff . Accordingly, substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the appellant. Answer to substantial question of law NO.2: 10. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the appellant. Answer to substantial question of law NO.2: 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that now for the year 1410 to 1415 Fasali (i.e. 2003-2008) plaintiff's name has been recorded on revenue record in c1ass-4 in place of the defendant, as occupant, and mutation order dated 18-10-2001 has been passed by the revenue authorities in this regard, as such, the plaintiff's title is better than that of defendant. Copies of these documents are filed by the plaintiff-appellant with memo of appeal. Such copies or additional evidence, which are filed without adopting procedure provided under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot be read in evidence, at the appellate 'stage. Moreover, copy of order dated 15-05-2002 (copy Annexure C.A.-1) passed by Assistant Record Keeper / Assistant Collector, with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, show that the mutation order passed on 18-10-2001 has been recalled. In the circumstances, the aforesaid documents, in view of above discussion, cannot be read in evidence nor by such entries, the civil court can be said to be binding on the basis of such entries. However, had there been an entry in revenue record as to possession, on the date of institution of suit, the same would have been a substantive and strong evidence corroborating possession of the plaintiff and civil court could not have ignored it. But, plaintiff cannot be said to be barred from adducing other evidence showing his possession over land in suit. With these observations, substantive question of law No. 2 is answered. Answer to substantial question of law NO.3&. 4 : 11. From what has been discussed above, it is clear, that oral evidence led by plaintiff, corroborated by the admissions of defendant in the rectification memo dated 27-06-1989 and affidavit dated 04-07-1989, the plaintiff's possession is proved on the record. Not only this, certified copy of the Commissioner's report dated 9-08-1991 (paper Nos. 75-C/29 and 75-C/30) filed in suit No. 53 of 1989. also corroborates that In plot No. 188/3. tube well of Desh Raj (appellant) is found installed. Apart from that. paper Nos. 75-C/1 to 75-C/28. in trial court record. show that in respect of plot No. 188/3 the payment of irrigation charges to the authorities for the years 1990 onwards. 75-C/29 and 75-C/30) filed in suit No. 53 of 1989. also corroborates that In plot No. 188/3. tube well of Desh Raj (appellant) is found installed. Apart from that. paper Nos. 75-C/1 to 75-C/28. in trial court record. show that in respect of plot No. 188/3 the payment of irrigation charges to the authorities for the years 1990 onwards. has been made by the plaintiff (appellant) which' have been completely ignored and misread by both the courts below. and their findings that plaintiff is not in possession of the land in dispute is perverse and against the record. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to various case laws including Govindaraju Vs. Mariamman, reported in 2005 AIR 5CW 916 and Mohan Lal Vs. Nihal Singh reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 584, and argued that the High Court should not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact of the courts below. I have perused the aforesaid case laws. It is nowhere provided that if the finding of fact of trial court and lower appellate court is found perverse and against the law, the High Court should remain silent. No doubt, in second appeal, this Court should not disturb finding of fact of courts below even if erroneous but when it is perverse as well as against record, this Court has no option but to reverse such finding to do justice between the parties. 13. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of respondents, that the courts below have rightly refused the injunction as against the plaintiff-appellant as he was recorded tenure holder in Varg-4 (unauthorized occupant). I fail to appreciate this submission in the present circumstances of the case where it is clearly established from the discussion as above that the plaintiff is in possession of plot No. 188/3, which was delivered to him by the defendant himself. Had it been a case of unauthorized occupant seeking injunction against true bhumidhar (a person having better title). the Court In Its discretion should have refused Injunction not to disturb his possession. but here the plaintiff's possession over land in dispute Is no inferior to the interest the defendant held before delivering possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, both the substantial questions of law No. 3 and 4 are answered in favour of the appellant (plaintiff). 14. Accordingly, for the reasons as discussed above, the appeal is allowed. but here the plaintiff's possession over land in dispute Is no inferior to the interest the defendant held before delivering possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, both the substantial questions of law No. 3 and 4 are answered in favour of the appellant (plaintiff). 14. Accordingly, for the reasons as discussed above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as by lower appellate court are set aside. The suit flied by plaintiff is decreed as prayed against the defendant, for Injunction. However, costs easy.