PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. This appeal, preferred under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16. 7. 1982, passed by learned District Judge, Almora, Camp-Ranikhet, in original suit No. 29 of 1979, whereby the suit is dismissed by said Court. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed original suit No. 29 of 1979, for declaration that the land of plots No. 357 and 358, situated within the limits of Cantonment Board, Ranikhet, measuring 1. 111 acre, is Waqf property, used as grave yard of the Muslims for the times immemorial. Plaintiffs further sought possession of the land, occupied by defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 and also sought recovery of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- on account of damages. It is pleaded in the plaint that the land of survey plot No. 357, measuring 0. 498 acre and that of plot No. 358, measuring 0. 613 acre, has been a customary grave yard from time immemorial of the Muslims within the limits of the Cantonment Ranikhet. It is further alleged that there existed an old ruined mosque in survey plot No. 358 and a house over a land measuring 20 ft x 12 ft, belonging to the Muslims. One late Qudrat Shah, used to live in said house as Takiyadar of the grave yard. On application of Qudrat Shah, Cantonment Board, Ranikhet, granted a rent free lease in his favour on 15th April, 1915, for agriculture and residential purposes. However, said plot No. 137 A does not correspond to the survey plots No. 357 and 358. Nor the grave yard, mosque or the house had ever been private property of Qudrat Shah or that of his descendants (defendants No. 2 and 3 ). Defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendants No. 2 and 3, who are son and daughter of Qudrat Shah, got agreement executed through them on 23. 9. 1968, for sale of the land, allegedly owned by late Qudrat Shah. It is pleaded that no right can be conferred on defendant No. 1 by defendants No. 2 and 3, as Qudrat Sah, had no proprietary rights over the land in suit. 4. 9. 1968, for sale of the land, allegedly owned by late Qudrat Shah. It is pleaded that no right can be conferred on defendant No. 1 by defendants No. 2 and 3, as Qudrat Sah, had no proprietary rights over the land in suit. 4. Defendant No. 1 Mathura Nath, contested the suit and filed his written statement, stating that he is in possession of the land in suit on the basis of the registered agreement dated 23. 09. 1968, executed by defendants No. 2 and 3, who accepted the consideration from him. Denying the fact that the disputed land is grave yard, it is pleaded by defendant No. 1 that defendants No. 2 and 3, after execution of the agreement, have colluded with the plaintiffs. 5. Defendants No. 2 and 3 (Talib Hussain and Banney Hussain), filed their joint written statement, in which the case of the plaintiffs is admitted. 6. Defendants No. 4 and 5 (Union of India and Military Estate Officer) in their joint written statement, denied the contents of the plaint and it is pleaded that the Government of India, had given the land in suit in lease to Qudrat Shah. When a notice under section 185 of Cantonment Act, was served on respondent No. 1-Mathura Nath, to vacate the land in suit, he filed a civil suit before Munsif, Ranikhet. Defendant No. 6 - Cantonment Board, also filed its written statement and denied the allegations, contained in the plaint. It is alleged by the Cantonment Board, in their written statement that survey plot No. 5 is earmarked as grave yard for the Muslims and it has nothing to do with the land of survey plots No. 357 and 358. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed following issues:- 1. Whether the land in suit is the grave yard of the Muslim Community from the times immemorial and is a Waqf-Fee-Sabilillah by user from the times immemorial? 2. Whether the rights of the Government of India in the land in suit extinguished as stated in the statement recorded under Order X C. P. C. ? 3. Whether the lease of 1915 in the name of Qudrat Ali Shah was granted to him as Takiyadar and not in his personal capacity? 4. Whether the defendants No. 2 and 3 had no right to transfer the land in suit? 5. 3. Whether the lease of 1915 in the name of Qudrat Ali Shah was granted to him as Takiyadar and not in his personal capacity? 4. Whether the defendants No. 2 and 3 had no right to transfer the land in suit? 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable because defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 have been impleaded as formal defendants only? 6. Whether the suit against defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 is not maintainable as alleged in paras 27 and 28 of the written statement of these defendants? 7. Whether the suit is barred by time as alleged in para 33 of the W. S. of defendant No. 1? 8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit? 9. Whether there existed graves and any mosque in the land in question and the defendant No. I has utilized its material in the construction of his house? If so, to what amount of damages are the plaintiffs entitled on this count? 10. Whether there existed fruit bearing trees in the land in question and the defendant No. 1 has cut them down? If so, to what amount of damages are the plaintiffs entitled on this count? 11. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled _ to get possession of the land in question from the defendants No. 1,2 and 3 as alleged? 12. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiffs are entitled? 8. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the land in suit is grave yard of Muslim Community or that it is a Waqf property. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiffs could not prove that there graves and mosque on the land in suit. On the basis of findings on issue No. 1 and 3, issues No. 2 and 7, are also decided in negative. On issue No. 4, the Trial Court found that the defendants No. 2 and 3, are heirs of Qudrat Ali Shah, who succeeded the land in suit, and that the lease was executed in 1915, by the Government of India in favour of Qudrat Ali Shah, in his personal capacity and not as Takiyadar. Issues No. 5 and 6, are also decided against the plaintiffs, holding that it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable. Issues No. 5 and 6, are also decided against the plaintiffs, holding that it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable. However, issue No. 8 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs can maintain the suits through representatives. On issue No. 10, the Trial Court held that defendant No. 1 has not damaged the fruit bearing trees, standing on the land in suit. Lastly, the Trial Court found on issues No. 11 and 12 that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief, and dismissed the suit with costs. Hence this appeal is filed before Allahabad High Court by the plaintiffs on 11. 10. 1982, where it was admitted on the same day. The appeal is received by transfer to this Court under section 35 of U. P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 9. On behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants, attention of this Court is drawn to Ext. 21, a certified copy of Government Land Register of Cantonment Board, relating to plot No. 358, which shows that survey plot No. 358 is a mohammaddan Grave yard. On examination of the evidence on record, adduced by the parties, this Court finds that the Trial Court has erred in law by ignoring such an important document relating to the character of the said plot in suit. All the oral evidence, adduced on behalf of the defendants that land in suit is not grave yard, gets belied to the extent of this plot i. e. plot No. 358. It is a settled principle of law that Waqf not only can be created by the dedication of property by Waqif but also it can be created by recognized user by the public. The aforesaid document Ext. 21 is the proof of the fact, pleaded by the plaintiffs that plot No. 358 was a Muslims grave yard. In Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa, AIR 1976 SC 1569 it has been held by the Apex Court that the entry made in this regard in the public record is a conclusive proof to show the public character of the grave yard. In Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa, AIR 1976 SC 1569 it has been held by the Apex Court that the entry made in this regard in the public record is a conclusive proof to show the public character of the grave yard. It is further held in said case that once a kabristan has been found to be a public grave yard then it vests in the public and constitutes a Wakf and it cannot be divested by non-user but will always continue to be so whether it is used or not. That being so, the Trial Court has erred in law in dismissing the suit in respect of survey plot No. 358. 10. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that for Muslims, Cantonment Board, has provided a grave yard in survey plot No. 5 and as such, the plaintiffs have no right of burial over the land in suit. Argument advanced on behalf of respondent has little force for the reason that there can be more than one grave yard in a town or a city. Merely for the reason that in survey plot No. 5, there is a grave yard, that by itself does not change the character of survey plot No. 358, particularly in view of the fact that there is sufficient oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs that there had been burials over the land in suit (plot No. 358) from the time immemorial. 11. However, the same cannot be said in respect of plot No. 357. Copy of General Land Register, maintained by Cantonment Board, which is filed before the Trial Court, relating to plot No. 357, shows that said land is recorded as agricultural land, measuring. 494 acres. And the name of the occupier is Qudrat All Shah. There is no mention in the record that land of plot No. 357 was being used as grave yard. As such, this Court is in agreement with the Trial Court relating to the discussion of evidence to the extent of plot No. 357. Copy of lease deed executed by the Government of India in favour of Qudrat Ali Shah, is also filed on the record, which is paper No. 72-C. It is nowhere mentioned in this lease deed dated 15. 04. Copy of lease deed executed by the Government of India in favour of Qudrat Ali Shah, is also filed on the record, which is paper No. 72-C. It is nowhere mentioned in this lease deed dated 15. 04. 1915 that the land was given to Qudrat Ali Shah for using it by him or by the members of the Muslim Community, as grave yard. Learned Counsel for the appellants, drew attention of this Court to the map, which is paper No. 90-C and contended that the mention of graves is there in the map. However, it is not clarified from the map that whether these graves are in plot No. 358 or 357. As such, on its basis, it cannot be said that the land of plot No. 357 is grave yard. Though the possession of defendant No. 1 Mathura Nath cannot be said to be lawful as against Cantonment Board and Union of India, but the plaintiffs have no right to dispossess him from the piece of land of plot No. 357 occupied by him unless better title is shown. 12. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed partly. While suit deserves to be decreed in respect of plot No. 358. The same is liable to be dismissed in respect of plot No. 357. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 16. 7. 1982, passed by learned District Judge, Almora, in original suit No. 29 of 1979, is set aside to the extent the suit is dismissed in respect of plot No. 358. The suit in respect of plot No. 358, measuring 0. 613 acre, which is recorded as Mohamaddan Grave yard in Ext. 21, copy of GLR maintained by the Cantonment Board, is decreed. The land of plot No. 358 is declared as grave yard of Muslims. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to the burials over plot No. 358, measuring 0. 613 acre. However, the suit shall remain dismissed in respect of plot No. 357 and other reliefs, sought by the plaintiffs. To that extent (i. e. to the extent of plot No. 357, measuring 0. 498 acres of the land), the appeal is dismissed. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to the burials over plot No. 358, measuring 0. 613 acre. However, the suit shall remain dismissed in respect of plot No. 357 and other reliefs, sought by the plaintiffs. To that extent (i. e. to the extent of plot No. 357, measuring 0. 498 acres of the land), the appeal is dismissed. It is also clarified that dismissal suit of plaintiffs in respect of plot No. 357 will have no affect on the rights of the defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 to get dispossessed the defendant No. 1 from said plot in accordance with law. Costs easy. Appeal Partly Allowed. .