JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the plaintiffs appellant, defendant respondent and perused the record. 2. The facts as culled out from the record are that the plaintiffs appellant filed original suit No. 530 of 2002, Vishambhar Singh and another versus Durbeen Singh for cancellation of sale-deed executed in favour of defendant respondent by Sri Ram Veer, Sri Ram Vilash, Sri Pooran Singh and Sri Mangal Singh in respect of land Nos. 448,450,452 and 477. The plaintiffs appellant claimed themselves to be the owners of the aforesaid land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant respondent denying the claim of the plaintiffs appellant. 4. The trial Court has recorded a finding of fact that the matter is sub-judice before the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53542 of 2006, Durbeen Singh versus State of U.P. and others in which an order of status quo to be maintained between the parties, has been passed , hence the plaintiffs appellant have no right to file suit for cancellation of the sale-deed without final direction of their rights.. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellant is that the trial Court has committed an error on face of record by placing reliance on entry made on the basis Pa-Ka-11, which is not sustainable in law. He has also assailed the findings of the trial Court that the parties in the suit i.e. plaintiffs appellant cannot file suit for cancellation of the sale-deed as they were not recorded tenure holders is without jurisdiction. 6. The findings aforesaid of the trial Court were challenged by the plaintiffs appellant in appeal before the first Appellate Court which also dismissed the appeal by observing that the findings recorded by the trial Court do not require any interference. The lower Appellate Court has also observed that issue Nos. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 decided by the trial Court were not challenged by the plaintiffs appellant in the first appeal. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the defendant respondent is that he had purchased the land in dispute from the grandsons of Dibiya as such he being the legal heir and representative of Dibiya had right to sell the property in dispute. 8. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the defendant respondent is that he had purchased the land in dispute from the grandsons of Dibiya as such he being the legal heir and representative of Dibiya had right to sell the property in dispute. 8. From perusal of the judgment of the Courts below it appears that the plaintiffs appellant claim perfection of their right on the land in dispute by adverse possession over the land in dispute for more than 60 years i.e. even from before Zamindari Abolition. The Courts below have recorded categorical findings that the plaintiffs appellant have failed to prove their case of the true owner. The Courts below have also observed that till rights are settled by adjudication in favour of the plaintiffs appellant in the matter subjudice before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 53542 of 2006,Durbeen Singh versus State of U.P. and others, they had no right to file suit on the basis of their alleged adverse possession for cancellation of the sale-deed executed by the legal heirs and representatives of Dibiya. In this regard the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court that the plaintiffs appellant have failed to prove their case of possession much less than of adverse possession for more than 60 years since before Zamindari Abolition are quoted below for ready reference. In this regard the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court that the plaintiffs appellant have failed to prove their case of possession much less than of adverse possession for more than 60 years since before Zamindari Abolition are quoted below for ready reference. **izfroknh dh rjQ ls i=koyh ij dkxt la0 52x@4 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV fiVh’ku la[;k 53542@06 nqchZu flag cuke jkT; vkfn esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 27-9-2006 dh lR; izfrfyfi nkf[ky dh x;h gS ftlesa fy[kk gS fd bl U;k;ky; ds vfxze vkns’k rd fjV fiVh’ku esa mHk;i{k dks fookfnr lEifRr ds dCtk o izÑfr ds lEcU/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr j[kus ds fy;s funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gSA bl vkns’k ds fo:) dksbZ vkns’k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ds laca/k esa oknhx.k@vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls dksbZ dkxt nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k vkSj ,slk Hkh dksbZ dkxt nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k fd bl fjV fiVh’ku dk fuLrkj.k vafre :i ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk dj fy;k x;k gksA ftlls Li"V gS fd ekeyk vHkh Hkh eku~uh; mPp U;k;ky; es yfEcr gSA ftlls Li"V gS fd izfroknh@mRrjnkrk ds fo:)] tks vkns’k fnukad 27-12-2002 ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj tks fookfnr lEifRRk ds laca/k esa Fkk] esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa mHk;i{k dks fookfnr lEifRr ds dCtk o izÑfr ds laca/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr dk;e j[kus dks funsZ’k fn;k gSA ftlls Li"V gS fd vkns’k fnukad 27-12-2002 vHkh Hkh vafre ugha gqvk gSA ih- MCyw- 1 fo’kEHkj flag us vius c;ku dh izfri`PNk esa dgk gS fd eS fookfnr uEcjku dk ladze.kh; Hkwfe/kj ugha gWwaA cfYd esjk uke Js.kh&9 esa ntZ gSA fnfC;k o usrk dk uke bu uEcjku esa ladze.kh; Hkwfe/kj ds :i esa ntZ gS vkSj Lohdkj fd;k gS fd dkxt la0 52 x esa e`rd fnc;k ds LFkku ij jkeohj] jkefoykl] iwju flag iq=x.k NksVsyky dk uke ntZ gS tks fnfc;k ds ukrh gS og fn0 11-10-2002 dks fnfc;k ds lhu ij crkSj ukrh ntZ gq;s gSSA---------------------------** **fo)ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl okn ds fu"d"kZ es dgk gS fd oknhx.k dk uke vly [kkrsnkj ds :i esa ntZ ugha gSA blfy;s O;ogkj U;k;ky; dks bl okn dh lquokbZ dk vf/kdkj Hkh ugha gS vkSj mHk;i{k ds dbZ ekeys eky U;k;ky; ess py jgs gSA oknhx.k us mi ftykf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; es /kkjk 229ch dh dk;Zokgh Hkh izkjEHkdj j[kh gS tSlk fd oknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr dkxt la0 46x ls Li"V gksrk gS ftlls Li"V gksrk gS fd oknhx.k vius vf/kdkjksa dk fofu’p; mi ftykfèkdkjh ds U;k;ky; ls djkuk pkgrk gSA fo)ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl ckr dks Li"V fd;k gS fd oknh dks cSukek fujLr djkus ls igys eky U;k;ky; ls /kkjk 229 ch ds varxZr vius vf/kdkjksa dh ?kks"k.kk djkuk gksxk vkSj blds fcuk cSukek fujLr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA oknhx.k us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fodzsrkx.k fnfc;k o usrk ds okfjlku gSAoknhx.k] ;g fl) ugha dj ik;s fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij mudk 60 o"kZ iwoZ ls dCtk gSA D;ksafd ih-MCyw- 1 fo’kEHkj flag us vius c;ku dh izfri`PNk es dgk gS fd bUr[kkc1409&1414 es esjk o tud flag dk uke ugha ntZ gSA blfy;s ugha dgk tk ldrk fd oknhx.k dk fookfnr lEifRr ij 60 o"kZ ls yxkrkj dCtk gS vkSj ;g Hkh ugha dgk tk ldrk fd mldk dCtk ifjiDo gks pqdk gS bl vk/kkj ij oknhx.k }kjk /kkjk 229ch dk okn nk;j ugha fd;k tk ldrkA fo)ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Li"V fd;k gS fd oknhx.k }kjk 1397 ls 1409 Qlyh ds [kljs dh izfrfyfi nkf[ky [krkSuh ds f}rh; Hkkx esa dk’rdkj ds :i esa eqdqUn flag dk uke ntZ gS tks oknhx.k ds firk gS ftldk vFkZ ;g gqvk fd o"kZ 1989 ls 2001 rd eqdqUn flag dk uke ntZ jgkA blds ckn oknhx.k dk uke ist ua0 10] [kljs es D;ksa ntZ ugha vk] dk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k gS rFkk oknhx.k ds firk dh e`R;q dh frfFk us Li"V ugha gS rFkk ;g Hkh dgk gS fd m0iz0 tehankjh mUewyu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ds vuqlkj Js.kh 9 es fj;klrh fdjk;s okyk] vuqxzgh dks lhjnkj cuk fn;k x;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa oknhx.k o muds firk dk uke lhjnkj ds :i esa vafdr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s Fkk ijUrq blds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; ugha nh x;h A oknhx.k }kjk vij ftykf/kdkjh ds ;gka /kkjk 229 ch dk okn nk;j fd;k x;k tSlk fd i=koyh ij izLrqr bl okn i= dh izfrfyfi ls Li"V gSA ftlls Li"V gS fd oknhx.k vius dCtk o ekfydkuk vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ?kks"k.kk djuk pkgrk gSA ftlls Li"V gS fd fookfnr lEifRr dk LokfeRo pkgs jkTlo vfHkys[kksa ds ;k dCts ds vk/kkj ij gks] vHkh rd fofu’pr ugha gqvk gS ,sls esa oknh ds }kjk dCts ds vk/kkj ij cSukek fujLr ugha djkus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA D;ksafd fodzsrkx.k ds }kjk d&11 esa tks bUnzkt gqvk ml lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn es fjV fiVh’ku fopkjk/khu gS ftlds laca/k esa oknhx.k] ds i{k esa dksbZ vo/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrhA fo)ku v/kkhuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk okn fcUnq uEcj 1 ds laca/k es tks fu"d"kZ fudkyk og lgh gSA fo)ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ;g fu"d"kZ lgh fudkyk fd oknhx.k o okni= es fn;s x;s dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr cSukek fnukad 18-10-2002 dks ealw[k djk ikus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA ;g fu"d"kZ i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds vuq:i gS vkSj fo)ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vius vf/kdkjksa dk lgh iz;ksx djrs gq;s lgh fu"d"kZ fudkyk tks fof/klEEkr gS rFkk mlesa gLr{ksi djus dh dksbZ vko’;drk ugha gS vkSj fo)ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk bl oknfcanq ds laca/k es tks fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS mldh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA fo)ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk oknfcanq uacj&2] 3] 4] 5] 6] 7] o 8 ds lacaèk esa tks fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS muds laca/k esa dksbZ vihy izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA blfy;s bu okn fcUnqvksa ds laca/k esa fo)ku v/khUkLFk U;k;ky; us tks fu"d"kZ fudkyk mldks oknhx.k us Lohdkj fd;k vkSj og T;ks dk R;ksa i=koyh ij gSA vr% mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd fo)ku v/khUkLFk U;k;ky; }kjk oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr okn dks [kkfjt djus esa dksbZ xYrh ugha dhA fo)ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k gS og i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds vuq:i gS mles gLr{ksi dh vko’;drk ugha gS vkSj fudkys x;s fu"d"kZ dh iqf"V dh tksus ;ksX; gS vr% vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS rFkk fo)ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk okn la0530@02 fo’kEHkj flag vkfn ist&11] nqchZu flag esa ikfnRk fu.kZ; ,oa fMxzh fnukad 28-8-2008 dh iqf"V dh tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns’k vihykFkhZ fo’kEHkj flag ,oa tud flag }kjk izLrqr vihy fujLr dh tkrh gS rFkk fo)ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk okn la[;k 530@02 fo’kEHkj flag vkfn cuke nqchZu flag esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 28-8-2008 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA fn0 7-12-2009] g0@vi0] 7-12-2009 ¼,l-ih- xks;y½ vij tuin U;k;k/kh’k] dksVZ ua07] bVkokA 9. On a query made by the Court from the learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellant as to what are the documents for establishing the case of the appellants in respect of adverse possession, he has failed to give reply and to show any document in this regard. It may be noted that for establishing a claim of adverse possession two ingredients are must; firstly possession must be open and hostile and secondly it must be adverse to the rights claimed by the actual owner. 10. Admittedly, in the instant case, Dibiya and Neta are said to have gone away without any information to any person and their whereabouts are not known. The plaintiffs appellant could not have claimed open and hostile possession over the land in dispute in so far as Dibiya and Neta are concerned as their whereabouts were not known to any person. As regards their legal heirs and representative, Sri Ramvir, Sri Ram Vilas, Sri Pooran Singh and Sri Mangal are concerned, the plaintiffs appellant also did not claim any possession over the land in dispute in an open and hostile manner with them. The claim of the plaintiffs appellant before the Courts below was based only on their so called adverse possession over the land in dispute for more than 60 years since before Zamindari Abolition which they failed to prove. 11. It is admitted fact that the plaintiffs appellant have not denied that Sri Ramvir, Sri Ram Vilas, Sri Pooran Singh and Sri Mangal are not grandsons of Dibiya, rather they have admitted this fact. The Courts below have recorded a categorical finding of fact that his adverse possession as claimed by the plaintiffs appellant was not proved and that possession of the land in dispute merely by tilling of the land is not sufficient to satisfy the ingredients of adverse possession. Since the plaintiffs appellant have failed to prove their case before the Courts below and also considering the fact that they have not been able to make out a case of adverse possession even before this Court, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence,no interference is required in the impugned judgments and orders of the Courts below. 12. The second appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ————