JUDGMENT By the Court.—It is an unfortunate case. The facts of the case unveils how some Government servants, here two officials, who were in possession of revenue record, as part of duty to protect the Government land, colluded with each other to grab the Government property by forging the revenue record and entered the names of their wives and sons who are plaintiffs herein. Thus, they caused an estimated loss to the extent of Rs. 50 crores to the public exchequer as found in the inquiry report dated 11.4.2002. 2. This is defendants’ appeal against the original judgment and decree dated 30th of May, 2005. 3. Present first appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. through Collector, Bijnor and Forest Range Officer, Amangarh Range, Bijnor against the judgement and decree dated 30.5.2005 and 8.7.2005, respectively, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Bijnor by which the suit has been decreed being O.S. No. 545 of 1991 Ajay Singh son of Mahavir Singh, Abdullah son of Mohamood Khan, Smt. Akhtari daughter of Imamuddin and Smt. Nirmala Devi Daughter of Chhote Lal, all residents of village-Rani Nangala, Post Afzalgarh, Tehsil Nagina, District Bijnor. against State of U.P. through Collector, Bijnor and and Forest Range Officer, Amangarh, Range, Bijnor and directed defendants not to interfere in ownership and peaceful possession of plaintiffs over Plots No. 24/2 to 24/5, 27/02, 28/1, 29 to 32 area 89 bigha, 18 biswa situated in village-Rani Nangala, district Bijnor. 4. From perusal of record, it transpires that the respondents herein filed the above mentioned civil suit for permanent injunction against the State of U.P. through Collector and Forest Range Officer, Amangarh, Bijnor alleging that they are owners in possession of the disputed plots. Defendant No. 2 has its office near that land and its employees are inimical to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are using the disputed plots by sowing and reaping the crops and defendants have no concern with the land. There were some trees in the disputed plots due to which they were feeling difficulty in using that portion of the land. So, they moved an application for permission to cut those trees on 20.3.1990 before Prabhagiya, Van Adhikari (Tarai, Pashchim Van Prabhag), Ram Nagar, who was the superior officer of defendant No. 2 and had power to grant permission. There were some trees in the disputed plots due to which they were feeling difficulty in using that portion of the land. So, they moved an application for permission to cut those trees on 20.3.1990 before Prabhagiya, Van Adhikari (Tarai, Pashchim Van Prabhag), Ram Nagar, who was the superior officer of defendant No. 2 and had power to grant permission. In this matter, defendant No. 2 was expecting some bribe from plaintiffs and due to non-fulfilment of that demand, they were inimical to them. The defendants threatened that neither they will permit them to cut the trees nor the plaintiffs will be permitted to use the land for agriculture purpose. Several letters were written for permission to cut the trees, though due to lapse of time, the permission deemed to be granted. On 5.7.1991, defendant No. 2 and other persons alongwith Police force came and demolished their Dera and took away other agricultural implements and hand-pump etc. Plaintiffs filed the suit without giving any notice under Section 80 CPC on the pretext that if notice is given, then the delay will defeat the purpose of suit and prayed for exemption from giving notice under Section 80 CPC. The plaintiffs after filing the suit, prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering in ploughing, sowing and reaping the crops and using the land and also be restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs. 5. Defendants filed their written statements denying that plaintiffs are owners in possession or bhumidhar of the disputed land. They also denied that they are tenant of village-Rani Nangala because the disputed land along with other land has been declared reserved forest under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act and plaintiffs have no right to challenge the notification for that purpose. It was stated that disputed land is a forest land and is in control and possession of Forest Department. The standing trees are also property of the forest department. According to plaintiffs own admission, their illegal possession has been removed, hence, the suit is not maintainable. If at all, plaintiffs have got their names recorded by fraud or in-collusion of revenue personnel, then that entry has no value and the plaintiffs cannot claim any right due to that illegal and forged entry. According to plaintiffs own admission, their illegal possession has been removed, hence, the suit is not maintainable. If at all, plaintiffs have got their names recorded by fraud or in-collusion of revenue personnel, then that entry has no value and the plaintiffs cannot claim any right due to that illegal and forged entry. The suit is not maintainable and it is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The ownership of the plaintiffs is disputed, hence, without declaration of title the suit is not maintainable. vide notification No. 147-1926, dated 31.7.1928 under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act, the total area of village Rani Nangala which is 1484 acre has been declared reserved forest. Plaintiffs have not raised any objection against that notification, hence, the suit is barred. Plaintiffs were never in possession of the disputed land, so, the suit is barred by Section 20 of Indian Forest Act, Sections 35 and 41 Specific Relief Act and thus plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. The suit is undervalued. 6. It is worthy to note that appellant had amended their written statement and added para-34-A in which it has been mentioned that vide letter No. 30/7-Bhu-Lekh-H-10 Inquiry Dated 15.4.2002 of District Magistrate, Bijnor, the inquiry report has been sent to Prabhagiya Nideshak, Van Prabhag, Bijnor in which it has been found that certain persons have on forged documents got Rani Nangala village declared as a revenue village which was earlier forest land. It has also been stated that Mahadev Singh Malviya, Lekhpal, Amin of irrigation department Sri Mahmood Ahmad and the then A.R.K. Ghasita Singh have colluded and by creating forged revenue papers declared the forest land to be revenue village. The disputed land is forest land and plaintiffs have no concern with that land. 7. In their replication, plaintiffs have stated that Rani Nangala village was already a revenue village and no new revenue village has been created, revenue records cannot be changed and plaintiffs are Bhumidhars with transferable right. 8. Learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) after going through the pleadings framed the following issues: (i) Whether plaintiffs are owner in possession of land Khasra Nos. 24/2 to 25/5, 28/1,28/2,27/2, 29 to 32 area 89 bigha, 18 biswa, village Rani , Post Afzalgarh, Tehsil Nagina, District Bijnor and also of the trees therein? 8. Learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) after going through the pleadings framed the following issues: (i) Whether plaintiffs are owner in possession of land Khasra Nos. 24/2 to 25/5, 28/1,28/2,27/2, 29 to 32 area 89 bigha, 18 biswa, village Rani , Post Afzalgarh, Tehsil Nagina, District Bijnor and also of the trees therein? If so its effect. (ii) Whether the disputed land has been declared for reserve forest under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act? if so its effect. (iii) Whether plaintiffs are not in possession of the disputed land? If so its effect. (iv) Whether civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as has been mentioned in para-26 of the written statement and whether the suit is barred by provisions of Section 331 of UPZA &LR Act? (v) Whether the suit is barred by provisions of Sections 38 and 41 Specific Relief Act as has been mentioned in para-33 of the written statement? (vi) Whether the suit is barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence? if so its effect. (vii) Whether the suit is barred by time as has been pleaded in para-31 of the written statement, if so its effect. (viii) Whether the suit is undervalued and the Court fee paid is insufficient? (ix) What reliefs, if any, are plaintiffs entitled? 9. In support of their claim, parties had filed several papers which shall be dealt with at the appropriate place. In addition to this, plaintiffs have examined Mohd. Akhtar PW/1 and Hakim Singh as P.W. 2. Defendants have examined Abdul Sattar as D.W. 1. Learned lower Court has after going through the evidence and documents, decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved the defendants have filed this appeal. 10. We have heard learned Standing counsel for the State and Sri B.K.Mishra for the respondents. 11. It has been argued from the side of appellants that land in question is a reserved forest land. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) has no jurisdiction to hear the suit as it was barred by Section 331 of the UPZA & LR Act. The revenue entries in favour of the plaintiffs is a result of forgery and collusion with the employees of revenue department. Plaintiffs-respondents were never in authorized possession of the disputed land and were never recorded as tenure holder, anything contrary to this, is wrong. The revenue entries in favour of the plaintiffs is a result of forgery and collusion with the employees of revenue department. Plaintiffs-respondents were never in authorized possession of the disputed land and were never recorded as tenure holder, anything contrary to this, is wrong. By notification No. 147-1926 dated 31.7.1928 made under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act, total area of about 1484 acres of village Rani Nangala has been declared forest land and since then the said land is in exclusive possession and ownership of the forest department. Later on, by another notification dated 27.1.1939, 150 acre land too of that village was declared forest land. The notifications dated 31.7.1928 and 27.1.1939 were never challenged. Hence, the suit is barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence. The copies of khasras and khataunis pertaining to the land ownership and possession of the respondent are forged and fabricated and notifications dated 31.7.1928 and 27.1.1939 have overriding effects. The appellant had constituted an inquiry committee presided by Sub-Divisional Officer, Najibadad, Bijnor and six other members dated 26.3.2002. The Committee has submitted the inquiry report dated 11.4.2002 in which the committee has concluded that plaintiffs in collusion with revenue authorities have manipulated and obtained forged entries pertaining to the land in question. Appellant No. 1, after agreeing with the inquiry report, has already sent a letters dated 15.4.2002 with a specific direction to Prabhagiya Nideshak, Van Prabhag, Bijnor, which is on record. But learned Court below has over looked the same in passing the decree. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the agricultural land of the respondent was acquired for construction of ‘pili dam’ and ‘Kalluwala dam’, therefore, they were displaced and were deprived from their agricultural land. Thereafter, the Government issued an order being G.O. No. 3948 dated 30.6.1961 and some of the forest land was handed over to the Irrigation Department for rehabilitation of the displaced persons. For this purpose 352 acre land was given to the Irrigation Department. In view of the G.O. Dated 30.9.1961 and order dated 13th July, 1962 issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, U.P., the Government Notification No. 731 dated 3.7.1928 and the Government Notification dated 27.1.1939 declaring the land of Rani Nangala reserved forest land under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act has become insignificant and non-est. In view of the G.O. Dated 30.9.1961 and order dated 13th July, 1962 issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, U.P., the Government Notification No. 731 dated 3.7.1928 and the Government Notification dated 27.1.1939 declaring the land of Rani Nangala reserved forest land under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act has become insignificant and non-est. In view of this, right of the Forest Department over the property in question became extinct. The inquiry and action of the State Government was illegal, arbitrary and with mala fide intention and has no effect on the decision of the suit. 13. Refuting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents, learned Standing Counsel argued that plaintiffs-respondents have taken a simple case of their being owner in possession over the disputed land as a Bhumidhar. They have not pleaded anywhere that their land was acquired by the Government for construction of ‘pili dam’ and thus, after displacement, they were allotted these lands so the whole argument on this aspect is without pleading and it cannot be taken into account. It was also argued that revenue entries cannot confer title on any person. Plaintiffs have to prove that they are the owners of the disputed land. 14. From the arguments of the parties, we are of the view that following points are to be determined; 1. “Whether the finding of the Court below under issue No. 1 holding that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of disputed plot Nos. 24/2 to 24/28/1 and 28/2, 27/2 , 29 to 32 situate in village Ram Nagla is correct?” 2. “Whether the suit is hit by provisions of the Forest Act as the disputed land was admittedly declared as reserve forest land? 3. “Whether the suit is barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act? 4. “Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed property on the date of the suit? 5. “Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act? POINT NO. 1 15. It is apt to notice the pleadings of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint. The plaint is a small document and it consists of only 12 paragraphs in all. 5. “Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act? POINT NO. 1 15. It is apt to notice the pleadings of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint. The plaint is a small document and it consists of only 12 paragraphs in all. In the opening part of the plaint it has been stated that the plaintiffs are Bhumidhars with transferable rights and are in possession of the plots described therein measuring 89 bighas 18 biswas Pukhta land. In the subsequent paragraphs i.e. in paragraphs 2 to 10 it has been stated that the office of the defendant No. 2 is nearby and the respondent No. 2 has personal enmity with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are carrying on the cultivation activities in the disputed plots and the defendants have no concern with them. It has been further stated that the plaintiffs sought permission for cutting the trees and in this regard the correspondence is going on but permission deemed to have been granted automatically. On 5th of July, 1991 the defendant with the police force removed the belongings of the plaintiffs and the matter has been reported to the concerned officer. They are still threatening the plaintiffs. Notice under Section 80 CPC could not be given due to the urgency in the matter. This all what has been pleaded in the plaint. 16. In the plaint the plaintiffs have not disclosed their source of title as to how they have become Bhumidhar with transferable rights. The plots in question are their ancestral property or were acquired by them by means of sale-deed, gift etc. has not been disclosed. There is no averment in the plaint that they are the recorded Bhumidhars in the revenue record of the plot in question. The pleading as set out in the plaint is short of necessary averment regarding their ownership. Non disclosure of the source of the title in the plaint is a fatal defect, specially when it was declared as reserve forest by the Government notifications dated 31st of July, 1928 and 21st of January, 1939 issued under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act. The notifications are on record of the case and their existence was not disputed by the plaintiffs. The notifications are on record of the case and their existence was not disputed by the plaintiffs. By the notification dated 31st of July, 1928, 1484 acres land situate at Rani Nagla was declared as reserve forest land. The boundaries are described therein. It is paper No. 257 Ga. By subsequent notification dated 27th of January, 1939, 150 acres of land of District Bijnore, Pergana Afzalgarh of Rani Nagla was declared reserve forest land, under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act. The existence of the Forest Department is not disputed by the plaintiffs. Rather they have come forward with the case that the office of the Forest Department is there and people of Forest Department use to visit the said office and also reside. 17. It appears that the plaintiffs during trial took a new stand not set up in their plaint and evidence was led by them on the footing that they are displaced persons and their land has been taken away by the State Government in connection with construction of Dam known as Pili Jalashay. To rehabilitate such displaced persons, there were correspondence between different departments of the State Government and it was ultimately resolved that the displaced persons may be accommodated by providing them land of the Forest Department. The said plea has found favour with the trial Court. The question now arises whether the above plea could at all be considered by the trial Court in absence of necessary averments in this regard in the plaint and secondly, whether the plaintiffs have been able to prove any such case that they are displaced persons or their land was taken for the purposes of construction of Pili Jalashay and the land which is part of reserve forest was actually allotted to them. 18. Paper No. 32-C-1 is photocopy of minutes of the meeting held at Ram Nagar (Nainital) on April, 10,1966 and an endorsement of ‘not admitted’ has been made by appellant’s counsel on this document. It is not a certified copy. Nobody on behalf of the plaintiffs has proved it. Nor it has come from proper custody. 18. Paper No. 32-C-1 is photocopy of minutes of the meeting held at Ram Nagar (Nainital) on April, 10,1966 and an endorsement of ‘not admitted’ has been made by appellant’s counsel on this document. It is not a certified copy. Nobody on behalf of the plaintiffs has proved it. Nor it has come from proper custody. Though this document is not admissible in evidence but for the sake of argument, a perusal of this document reveals that 351.97 acre land was given to Irrigation Department for rehabilitation of the persons displaced due to submergence of their land in pili dam and for rehabilitation of affected cultivators. There is no document on record to show that plaintiffs were such tenure holders of the land which was acquired for pili dam. In fact there is no document which may point out that as to what was the number of plots, area and who were tenure holders of the land which was acquired for construction of pili Dam. If the pili dam was constructed on forest land then there was no occasion to rehabilitate the persons who were illegally occupying the forest land. If these persons were tenure holders of any revenue land then the plot numbers and name of tenure holders should have been mentioned in the notification if any for acquisition of land acquired for construction of pili dam. In the absence of any such document the theory that any land of plaintiffs was acquired for construction of pili dam is nothing but a cock and bull story. 19. On this count, we do not find any evidence on record which may show that any piece of land of the plaintiffs was acquired for construction of pili dam or their land was submerged in pili reservoir. 20. From the above discussion, we find that neither there is any pleading to that effect nor there is any evidence to support the argument advanced by respondent’s counsel. The lower Court has erred in not considering this aspect. 21. Now, comes the second aspect of the case. 22. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that the reserve forest land was ever allotted to the plaintiffs. The date of allotment ,authority and order, if any, allotting the land to plaintiffs are not on record. The lower Court has erred in not considering this aspect. 21. Now, comes the second aspect of the case. 22. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that the reserve forest land was ever allotted to the plaintiffs. The date of allotment ,authority and order, if any, allotting the land to plaintiffs are not on record. The Court below has totally ignored this aspect of the matter and proceeded to hold the plaintiffs’ title on the basis of some stray revenue entries in their favour in addition to the statement of witness Mohd. Ahamed PW/1. 23. At one place, witness Mahmood Ahmed, P.W. 1 who is husband of Akhtari has stated that plaintiffs’ land is ancestral. If that would have been the case, plaintiffs would have filed Khatauni of basic year i.e. 1356 Fasli to show that their ancestors were recorded tenure holder of the disputed plot. The claim of ownership in this case does not travel beyond the Khatauni of 1396 Fasli. No record prior to 1396 Fasli has been filed. Plea of ancestral property and allotment of the disputed land in lieu of land taken for Pili Jalashay both cannot go hand to hand being inconsistent and contradictory to each other. On that count too we are of the opinion that plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the disputed land. 24. Now, comes the revenue entries, allegedly recording the plaintiffs’ names. 25. It has to be seen that when and under what circumstances plaintiffs’ name came to be mutated in the revenue records and by whose order and whether plaintiffs have been able to prove that the entries are genuine. 26. In this case, plaintiffs have to prove that they are the owners in possession as Bhumidhar of the land and the revenue entries are genuine. The burden lies on them. Revenue entries are not documents of title. Here, they are not long standing entries. These entries at the most relate back around the period of filing of the plaint. 27. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram, AIR 1997 SC 2181 , the Apex Court has held that: “The question, therefore, arises as to whether the entry in the settlement papers recording somebody’s name could create or extinguish title in favour of the person concerned? 27. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram, AIR 1997 SC 2181 , the Apex Court has held that: “The question, therefore, arises as to whether the entry in the settlement papers recording somebody’s name could create or extinguish title in favour of the person concerned? It is to be seen that the disputed land originally stood recorded in the name of Raja Sahib of Keonthal and thereafter the State was recorded to be the owner of the land in the record of right prepared in the year 1949-50. In the absence of the very order of the Assistant Settlement Officer directing necessary correction to be made in favour of the plaintiffs, it is not possible to visualize on what basis the aforesaid direction had been made. But at any rate such an entry in the Revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs.” 28. In the case of Balwant Singh and another v. Daulat Singh (dead) by Lrs. and others, AIR 1997 SC 2719 , the Apex Court has held that, “entries and revenue record do not convey or extinguish any title.” 29. In the case of Vishwa Vijaya Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan and others, AIR 1976 SC 1485 , the Apex Court has held that: “It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and Courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title” 30. In the case of Narain Prasad Aggarwal (dead) by Lrs. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007)11 SCC 736 , Apex Court has held that: “Record-of-right is not a document of title. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title” 30. In the case of Narain Prasad Aggarwal (dead) by Lrs. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007)11 SCC 736 , Apex Court has held that: “Record-of-right is not a document of title. Entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act although are admissible as a relevant piece of evidence and although the same may also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that such a presumption is rebuttable.” 31. It has been mentioned in the plaint and also in the statement of P.W. 1 that plaintiffs have sought permission to fell certain trees on 20.3.1990 in which permission was not granted for a considerable time. 32. A perusal of the record reveals that Akhtari and Nirmala Devi moved an application, Paper No. 189-C for taking away trees on which Forest Department passed an order that they should obtain ownership certificate from District Magistrate, Bijnor. This clearly goes to show that Forest Department has raised objection regarding the ownership of the plaintiffs over the disputed land and trees. There is a specific order dated 28.2.1995 passed by the forest department against the plaintiffs, which has been confirmed by this Court in writ No. 13772 of 1995, decided on 31.1.2002. 33. It will not be out of place to mention here that the case of defendants from the very beginning is that the land in dispute is the reserve forest land and the alleged revenue entries in favour of plaintiffs are forged and fictitious documents. As noticed herein above, these revenue entries are not long standing revenue entries and appears to be recorded for the first time in the year 1396 Fasli which corresponds to the year 1989. At this juncture, we may note that the District Magistrate had constituted a Committee consisting of high officials such as Sub-Divisional Magistrate being the Chairman, Assistant Bhulekh Adhikari, Tehsildar Nagina, Tehsildar Dhampur, concerned ACF and Sri B.K. Garg, Assistant Engineer (Irrigation) as members. In the inquiry report which is on record it was found out that Maha Veer Singh @ Maha Dev Singh Malviya @ Maha Veer Singh @ Maha Kabir Singh @ Maha Dev Sharma etc. etc. , the then Lekhpal, Tehsil Nagina in connivance with Mahmood Ahmed @ Mohd. In the inquiry report which is on record it was found out that Maha Veer Singh @ Maha Dev Singh Malviya @ Maha Veer Singh @ Maha Kabir Singh @ Maha Dev Sharma etc. etc. , the then Lekhpal, Tehsil Nagina in connivance with Mahmood Ahmed @ Mohd. Ahmed @ Mahmood Khan etc. etc. by playing fraud and forging the documents with a view to give the undue advantage to their family members, friends and relatives have fabricated cases under Sections 33/39 of U.P. Revenue Act to get the names of these persons recorded in the revenue record. A copy of the said report is on record. 34. It was rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel that every attempt was made by the plaintiffs to conceal their identities. For example, the plaintiff No. 4 Smt. Nirmala Devi is wife of Maha Veer Singh but instead she has been shown as daughter of Chhote Lal. The plaintiff No. 1 is son of Maha Veer Singh. The importance of Maha Veer Singh in the matter is because of the fact that a detailed inquiry was conducted against Maha Veer Singh. 35. Indisputably, the plaintiff No. 2 Abdullah is son of Mahmood Khan and Smt. Akhtari who is wife of Mahmood Khan has been described in the plaint as plaintiff No. 3 as Smt. Akhtari D/o Imamuddin. 36. In the inquiry report it has come that these two persons have transferred the Government property in the names of their son, wives, father, brother in law and other family members by fraudulent action and forging the revenue records and thus, caused a loss of Fifty Crores of rupees and have taken away 142.40 hectares land of National Forest known as Jim Corbett. 37. Plaintiffs have not averred a single word in their plaint that disputed land previously belonged to forest. P.W. (1) Mahmood Ahmad has also not uttered a single word in his examination-in-chief regarding the disputed land being the forest land. He has specifically denied that disputed land does not belong to Forest Department and it was never in possession over the disputed land. 38. It is to be noted that Khatauni Paper Nos. 10 C (1) and 10 C (2) of the lower Court record has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs which is of 1396 to 1401 Fasli ie. Year 1991 to 1996. 39. 38. It is to be noted that Khatauni Paper Nos. 10 C (1) and 10 C (2) of the lower Court record has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs which is of 1396 to 1401 Fasli ie. Year 1991 to 1996. 39. P.W.1 Mahmood Ahmad, who is husband of Akhtari defendant/respondent No. 3 in this case has stated in cross examination that the disputed land is ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the proof is in the file. He has gone to the extent of denial. 40. The gazette by which land of village Rani Nangala was declared to be reserved forest is on record. He has admitted the suggestion that it is correct to say that 1484 acre land was acquired as reserved forest. The trial Court found that the disputed land was declared as reserve forest land through two official gazettes, referred above, the burden that subsequently a part of it ceases to be reserve forest would lay on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have failed to discharge the said burden. 41. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the fact that they have received the land in place of their land which submerged in pili dam has not been pleaded. In the case of Union of India v. R. Bhushal, (2006) 6 SCC 36 , the Apex Court has held that “no evidence can be led on a plea not raised in the pleading.” 42. In the case of Ravinder Singh v. Nanmeja Singh and others, (2000) 8 SCC 191 , Apex Court has held that “no evidence can be lead on a plea not raised in the pleadings and no amount of evidence can cure defect in the pleadings.” 43. In the case of M.M.B. Catholicos v. T. Paulo Avira, AIR 1959 SC 31 , it has been held that plaintiff cannot be allowed to set up a new case in his evidence. He cannot be allowed to go out side his pleading and lead evidence on a fact not pleaded. 44. The Apex Court recently in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead), JT 2012 (3) SC 451, has again reiterated the importance of pleadings of the parties. The following observations are apt to reproduce : “52. Truth is the foundation of justice. 44. The Apex Court recently in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead), JT 2012 (3) SC 451, has again reiterated the importance of pleadings of the parties. The following observations are apt to reproduce : “52. Truth is the foundation of justice. It must be the endeavour of all the judicial officers and judges to ascertain truth in every matter and no stone should be left unturned in achieving this object. Courts must give greater emphasis on the veracity of pleadings and documents in order to ascertain the truth. 53. Pleadings are the foundation of litigation. In pleadings, only the necessary and relevant material must be included and unnecessary and irrelevant material must be excluded. Pleadings are given utmost importance in similar systems of adjudication, such as, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.” Thereafter, in para 61 it concluded that “pleadings are extremely important for ascertaining the title and possession of the property in question.” 45. D.W. 1 Abdul Sattar, has specifically stated that the disputed land was acquired as forest land through a gazette of the year 1928. 1484 acre land was declared reserve forest and after that in the year 1930,150 acre land was also notified to be the forest land. These notifications were issued under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act. He has further stated that these notifications are on record which are Paper Nos. 20-C and 33-C. 46. A perusal of the record reveals that paper Nos. 22-C and 33-C are the gazette notifications dated 15th September, 1928 and 27th January, 1939 respectively. The same papers have been filed vide No. 257-C and 258-C. Through these notifications 1484 acre land and 150 acre land was declared as reserved forest land. The Court below also in the judgement while discussing issues No. 1,2,3, has held that the total area of Rani Nangala was declared reserved forest land through different gazette notifications. 47. We have examined the original record of the case and are constrained to observe that the trial Court has decreed the suit ignoring the fact that there is no evidence worth the name to support the plaintiffs’ case. None of the plaintiffs appeared in the witness box. However, they have produced two witnesses namely Mahmood Ahmed PW/1 and Hakim Singh, PW/2. Indisputably, Mahmood Ahmed PW/1 is the husband of Akhtari, one of the plaintiffs. None of the plaintiffs appeared in the witness box. However, they have produced two witnesses namely Mahmood Ahmed PW/1 and Hakim Singh, PW/2. Indisputably, Mahmood Ahmed PW/1 is the husband of Akhtari, one of the plaintiffs. A bare perusal of the statements of witnesses would show that they could not state any material fact with regard to the plaintiffs’ title, if any, to the disputed plots. 48. The witness PW/1 in the cross examination stated that he is retired from the post of Amin of Irrigation Department and that he was looking after the record of the land in question and the other related things. This statement in the cross examination goes a long way to support the contention of defendants as they have found on inquiry, that Mahmood Ahmed colluded with Maha Veer who was Lekhpal of the village and these two persons manipulated the revenue record because the records were in their possession and they had access to the record. 49. In para 11 of the cross examination PW/1 has stated that the land was given to him in the year 1962-63 in exchange but could not state the particulars of his land which was taken in exchange. This is indicative of the fact that the witness is telling lie and his evidence lacks credit. 50. In further cross examination in para 16 the witness has stated that the disputed land was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs, a case which has not been even pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint. The land was declared reserve forest land in the year 1928 by the State Government by issuing gazette and there is no question of being ancestral property of the plaintiffs. The right, title or interest, if any, on declaration of reserve forest by the gazette notification vested in the Government. 51. The other witness who has been examined is one Hakim Singh. He is a fellow villager and has stated that he got the land in exchange as also the plaintiffs got the land in exchange. He further stated that he knows the plaintiffs for the last 37 years. He also could not give the particulars of the plots which were given in exchange. In para 7 of the cross examination he has stated that he has not seen Nirmala Devi and Akhtari Devi carrying on any agricultural operation on the spot. He further stated that he knows the plaintiffs for the last 37 years. He also could not give the particulars of the plots which were given in exchange. In para 7 of the cross examination he has stated that he has not seen Nirmala Devi and Akhtari Devi carrying on any agricultural operation on the spot. The statement of the witness does not prove the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Nor he could prove the title of the plaintiffs. 52. After having examined the oral evidence of the plaintiffs it is apt to consider the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiffs. On an examination of original record, we find that the plaintiffs have filed uncertified copies of certain documents alongwith various lists of documents. Through list of documents paper No. 27 C, three documents 28 C, 29 C and 30 C were filed. Similarly, through the list of documents C-40, copy of report dated 4.7.1991 has been filed being paper No. 41C. Through list C-46, six documents C-47 to C-58 were filed. None of these documents is either original document or certified copies. The defendants have disputed the correctness and genuineness of these documents and have made endorsement “ not admitted”. Strangely enough, the plaintiffs have not produced any witness or evidence to prove these documents. The trial Court without caring as to whether the documents referred to above, have even been proved or not has proceeded to rely upon them. Consequently, these documents have not been proved in accordance with law, could not have been relied upon by the trial Court and as such the order of the trial Court is vitiated. 53. Whenever there is change in entry in revenue record, the procedure of Chapter III of U.P. Land Revenue Act has to be followed, especially Section 33 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901. Sections 34 to 39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act gives power of change in record and correction of entries. 54. Plaintiffs have not filed any order by which the revenue entries were ordered to be corrected or changed. The plaintiffs have not even filed any paper to show that such land was allotted to them by virtue of they being displaced person by construction of pili dam or reservoir. 54. Plaintiffs have not filed any order by which the revenue entries were ordered to be corrected or changed. The plaintiffs have not even filed any paper to show that such land was allotted to them by virtue of they being displaced person by construction of pili dam or reservoir. Paper No. 34-C-1/1 and 34-C/2 alleged to be written by the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagina dated 27.3.1991 in which it has been mentioned that Executive Engineer, irrigation zone, Nainital has requested that the land of persons mentioned in the list attached with this letter, was acquired for construction of pili dam and some land was allotted to them and these are in possession of that land since last 28 years. But their names have not been mentioned in revenue papers, so rent has not been fixed. Hence, the name of the persons mentioned in the list, be mutated in revenue records. This letter was filed by the plaintiffs but it was not admitted by the State Counsel and so it should have been proved by the plaintiffs. This letter has not been proved. It has not come from proper custody. This letter appears to be part of forgery because the plaintiffs have not pleaded in the plaint that their land was acquired for construction of pili dam or reservoir and the notification of acquisition is not on record. We feel that this has been deliberately concealed so as to cover the forged entries in revenue record. 55. It is also worthy to mention that none of the plaintiffs have examined themselves. Only husband of Smt. Akhtari who is party to the fraud, has appeared in the witness box. He too has admitted that the disputed land is surrounded by forest land on two sides. He has further stated that he has received this land in exchange and he cannot tell the plot numbers of the land which he has given in its exchange. He has further admitted Survey of India for 1966 to 1967 has prepared a map but in this map none of the plot numbers of plaintiffs have been shown. He has further admitted in his cross examination that office of the Forest Department is situated in the disputed land where forest officials live and work. He has further admitted Survey of India for 1966 to 1967 has prepared a map but in this map none of the plot numbers of plaintiffs have been shown. He has further admitted in his cross examination that office of the Forest Department is situated in the disputed land where forest officials live and work. It has further been stated in his cross examination that the building which comprises of the Office of Forest Department was constructed by Forest Department. It was constructed according to him forcefully but he has not taken any action for removal of that building. 56. In the case of Adivekka and others v. Hanamavva Kom Venkatesh and others, AIR 2007 SC 2025 , it has been held that non examination of the party to the lis would lead to drawal of an adverse inference in the case. The Apex Court has based this observation on earlier laws laid down in the case of Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1927 PC 230 and Tulsi and others v. Chandrika Prasad and others, (2006) 8 SCC 322 . 57. From the above discussion, we are of the opinion that plaintiffs have not been able to prove that the Khataunis filed by them are genuine documents. The entire land of Rani Nangala was declared a reserved forest land by Government Notification. No order by which plaintiffs’ names were mutated in Khatauni, have been filed or proved and the procedure given in Sections 34 to 39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act has not been followed. 58. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title over the land in question. 59. We could lay our hands to a recent decision in the case of R. Hanumaiah and another v. Secretary to Government of Karnatka Revenue Department and others, JT 2010 (4) 411, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: Government Property—Suit for declaration of title/injunction against—Duty of Civil Court— “Many civil Courts deal with suits for declaration of title and injunction against Government, in a casual manner, ignoring or overlooking the special features relating to Government properties. Instances of such suits against Government being routinely decreed, either ex parte or for want of proper contest, merely acting upon the oral assertions of plaintiffs or stray revenue entries are common. Instances of such suits against Government being routinely decreed, either ex parte or for want of proper contest, merely acting upon the oral assertions of plaintiffs or stray revenue entries are common. Whether the Government contests the suit or not, before a suit for declaration of title against a Government is decreed, the plaintiff should establish, either his title by producing the title deeds which satisfactorily trace title for a minimum period of thirty years prior to the date of the suit (except where title is claimed with reference to a grant or transfer by the Government or a statutory development authority), or by establishing adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years. In such suits, Courts cannot, ignoring the presumptions available in favour of the Government, grant declaratory or injunctive decrees against the Government by relying upon one of the principles underlying pleadings that plaint averments which are not denied or traversed are deemed to have been accepted or admitted. A Court should necessarily seek an answer to the following question, before it grants a decree declaring title against the Government : whether the plaintiff has produced title deeds tracing the title for a period of more than thirty years; or whether the plaintiff has established his adverse possession to the knowledge of the Government for a period of more than thirty years, so as to convert his possession into title. Incidental to that question, the Court should also find out whether the plaintiff is recorded to be the owner or holder or occupant of the property in the Revenue Records or Municipal Records, for more than thirty years, and what is the nature of possession claimed by the plaintiff, if he is in possession-authorized or unauthorized; permissive; casual and occasional; furtive and clandestine; open, continuous and hostile; deemed or implied (following a title).” 60. This Court has noticed in the recent past that there is a growing tendency of officials working in the revenue department in districts around Delhi in NCR region to manipulate the revenue record for their own gains. It is apposite to reproduce one such remark made by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.U. Khan, while dealing in such matters, in Dina Nath v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (108) RD 321. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are reproduced below : “11. It is apposite to reproduce one such remark made by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.U. Khan, while dealing in such matters, in Dina Nath v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (108) RD 321. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are reproduced below : “11. The experience of the Court is that during consolidation proceedings, Consolidation Authorities/Officers liberally donate the Gaon Sabha properties to influential/resourceful persons by passing such orders as has been passed in the instant case. 12. Accordingly, all the Collectors of all the Districts in the State are directed to reopen such cases where names of private persons are entered in revenue records on the basis of old pattas or adverse possession over Gaon Sabha land and correct the illegality by taking suo motu action. However, no orders shall be set aside without issuing notice and hearing affected persons. If notice through registered post is not served then it may be served through publication in the newspaper also. If it is found that some Consolidation Officer or S.O.C. or D.D.C. has done similar thing, then the action must be proposed to be taken against him also.” 61. The aforesaid observation has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 4398/2010. The Supreme Court has made following observation in the Special Leave Petition : “...................In a matter like the present one, the Court cannot be a silent spectator and is bound to perform its constitutional duty for ensuring that the public property is not frittered by unscrupulous elements in the power corridors and acts of grabbing public land are properly enquired into and appropriate remedial action taken.” 62. It has come in evidence and papers have been filed to show that the entire land of Rani Nangala was acquired for reserved forest so the ownership vested in the State and afterwards in Forest Department. In view of this fact, plaintiffs have to prove that the disputed land was allotted to them in lieu of their land being sub-merged in pili dam. The necessary corollary would be that they will have to prove that they were owners of the land which was required for construction of pili dam or their land was sub-merged with water after construction of the pili dam. The necessary corollary would be that they will have to prove that they were owners of the land which was required for construction of pili dam or their land was sub-merged with water after construction of the pili dam. As discussed above, neither it has been pleaded nor it has been stated in the oral evidence that any land of the plaintiffs was taken for construction of Pili Jalashaya. But since plaintiffs have argued about this fact and lower Court has believed it and also these facts have been averred during argument before us, so in order to avoid any confusion, we discussed and made analysis of this aspect also. POINT No. 2. 63. Section 27 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 gives the power to the State Government to declare forest no longer reserve. It provides that the State Government by notification in the official gazette, directs that, from a date fixed by such notification, any forest or any portion thereof reserve under the Act shall be ceased to be a reserve forest. Section 27A has been inserted by the State of U.P. vide U.P. Act No. 23 of 1965 w.e.f. 23rd of November, 1965 which reads as follows : “27A. Finality of Orders, etc.; No act done, order made or certificate issued in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Chapter, except as herein before provided, be called in question in any Court.” 64. The U.P. Amendment Act completely bars the jurisdiction of any Court to decide the legality and validity of any act done, order made or certificate issued under Chapter II of the Indian Forest Act. 65. It follows when a reserve forest has been established through notification, it shall cease to be a reserve forest only when there is a notification to this effect by the State Government in the official gazette and not by any other process. In the case on hand, we do not find any such notification on record. This being so, it is end of the matter, so far as the plaintiffs are concerned. The land in dispute continues to be reserve forest land and the suit is hit by Section 27A, as added in State of U.P.. POINT NO. 3. 66. The present suit is for permanent injunction. In the plaint there is no averment that the plaintiffs were ever recorded in the revenue record. The land in dispute continues to be reserve forest land and the suit is hit by Section 27A, as added in State of U.P.. POINT NO. 3. 66. The present suit is for permanent injunction. In the plaint there is no averment that the plaintiffs were ever recorded in the revenue record. The permanent injunction has been sought for on the ground of possession as Bhumidhar with transferable right. In absence of any pleading that the plaintiffs’ names were recorded in any revenue year, they should have approached the revenue Court for declaration of their title as also for injunction under Section 229 D of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, power to grant injunction also vests in the revenue Court. 67. The Court below has proceeded to hold that the suit is not barred by Section 331 of the U.P. ZA & L.R. Act on the ground that the names of plaintiffs are recorded in the revenue record and they have filed the revenue receipts showing the payment of revenue. The said approach of the Court below is faulty in as much as the specific case of the defendants is that the revenue entries are forged and fictitious entries. Indisputably, the plots in question were originally recorded in the name of the Forest Department in the revenue record over these plots. Subsequently, it appears that the entry for the Forest Department was scored out and the plaintiffs’ names were entered without there being any judicial order in this regard. A procedure for scoring out name of recorded land holder is provided in the U.P. Revenue Act but there is nothing to show that the said procedure was followed. It necessarily requires the passing of an order to this effect by a Revenue Officer. 68. In the plaint it is not averred that the plaintiffs are the recorded tenure holders, but in evidence, the plaintiffs have tried to establish their title over the disputed land. In our view, such a question can be decided by revenue Court alone in a suit instituted under Section 229 B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as laid down by the Apex Court in Kamla Prasad v. Krishna Kant Pathak, 2007 (102) RD 378. Therefore, we hold that the civil suit is barred under Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. POINT NO. 4 69. Therefore, we hold that the civil suit is barred under Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. POINT NO. 4 69. A reading of the plaint would show that the plaintiffs averred therein that on 5th of July, 1991, the defendants dispossessed them and prevented the plaintiffs to carry out agricultural operation on the disputed land, vide para 10. In para 6 it has been stated that on the aforestated date the defendant No. 2 alongwith police force demolished the temporary constructions of the plaintiffs and uprooted them. 70. On behalf of the plaintiffs the main witness PW/1 also admits that the plaintiffs were dispossessed by police force. 71. The other aspect of the deposition of PW/1 is that the office of the Forest Department is on the land in dispute. In para 21 it has been stated that “ Vivadit Araji Mein Banvibhag Ka Daftar Bana Hai. Banvibhag Ke Adami Rahaten Hain, Aten Hai, Chale Jate Hain. Hamari Jameen Par Jabaran Kabja Kar Rakkha Hai. Ye Building Jisme Daftar Ha Banvibhag Ki Banvayee Huyi Hai. Jabardasti Banvayi Hai. Hamane Is Building Ko Hataney Ka Dawa Nahi Kiya.” 72. From the above, it follows that the witness has admitted that he is not in possession over the property in dispute. The property in dispute is in possession of the Forest Department and the latter has an office on the disputed land. Employees of the Forest Department are residing over the disputed land. POINT NO. 5 73. Ajai Singh and Maqsood Ahmed had earlier filed a writ petition No. Nil of 1991 before this Court for permission to cut and remove the trees. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 7th October, 1991. “The case of the petitioners is that they have applied for permission to cut and remove the trees to Divisional Forest Officer,Tarai Paschimi I Prabhag Ram Nagar, Nainital but the said application has not yet been disposed of under the provisions of U.P. Protection of Trees in Village and Mill area 1966. There is no material on record to show that the said application was received by the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai Paschimi I Prabhag, respondent No. 2. However, in case the petitioners application is received, we direct the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No. 2 to dispose of the same within one month. There is no material on record to show that the said application was received by the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai Paschimi I Prabhag, respondent No. 2. However, in case the petitioners application is received, we direct the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No. 2 to dispose of the same within one month. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.” 74. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the matter was considered by the Forest Department and their application for permission to cut the trees was rejected on the ground that the trees belong to the Forest Department by the order dated 4th November, 1991 (Paper No. 260 C2). In the application for permission filed by Ajai Singh and Maqsood Ahmed, they did not claim any title for land in question. It appears that the order dated 4th November, 1991 dismissing their representation was challenged before this Court in writ petition No. 3725 of 1992. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was restored to the concerned authority for making necessary inquiry after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners therein. In pursuance thereto, the matter was considered by the Director, Jim Corbett Reserve U.P. Ram Nagar, District Naini Tal who passed a detailed order dated 28.2.1995 rejecting their representation. It was again challenged in writ petition No. 13772 of 1995 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 31st of January, 2000. The said order is reproduced below : “Even though Smt. Sarita Singh, learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of the state of Uttar Pradesh, no one turns up on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition. This writ petition is, consequently, dismissed.” 75. Meaning thereby, the Forest Department had disputed the title, interest and right, if any, of the plaintiffs either in or on the land or in the standing trees. The plaintiffs ought to have sought declaration of their title before competent Court. In absence of any such relief simplicitor suit for injunction is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act by Section 41(h) in particular. In view of finding on point No. 4, the suit, in the absence of relief for possession, is not maintainable. 76. The plaintiffs ought to have sought declaration of their title before competent Court. In absence of any such relief simplicitor suit for injunction is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act by Section 41(h) in particular. In view of finding on point No. 4, the suit, in the absence of relief for possession, is not maintainable. 76. The order passed by the Forest Department refusing the grant of permission to the plaintiffs having been challenged unsuccessfully before writ Court as the writ petition was dismissed, had attained finality and the Civil Court committed illegality in not taking a note of it. 77. The report of the committee which is a bulky document was prepared by five high Government officials was produced before the trial Court but the same has been very conveniently ignored on the flimsy ground that no departmental action appears to have been taken against the erring official. Be that as it may, when the case of the defendant was that the revenue entries are forged and fictitious entries, before placing any reliance upon these revenue entries, the Court was under legal obligation to examine the legality and validity of those revenue entries first. It is an acknowledged legal position that from forged and fictitious revenue entries right, title or interest will not flow to such persons. The dispute is with regard to revenue paying land, wherein declaration of title is necessarily involved which could be declared by revenue Court. However, in view of the finding recorded by us on the merits of the case, this issue has become more or less academic. 78. In short, our conclusions are as follows : 1. The plaint lacks material pleading with regard to the plaintiffs’ title over the property in dispute and as such they have failed to prove their ownership over the property in question. 2. The land in dispute was admittedly declared as reserve forest land by issuing notifications under the Indian Forest Act, there being no notification with regard to the de-reservation of plot in question, the suit before the Court in view of Sections 27 and 27A (as amended in the State of U.P.) can not be decreed. 3. The plaintiffs have not come with clean hands before the Court. 3. The plaintiffs have not come with clean hands before the Court. They are family members, being son and wife of Maha Veer, the then Lekhpal of Tehsil Nagina and wife of Mahmood Ahmed, the then Amin (Irrigation), Afzalgarh Khand Kashipur who colluded with one another and manufactured the revenue record for wrongful gain to their family members and to swallow the Government property measuring 142.400 hectares of land valued at fifty crores of rupees reserved as buffer zone land for national forest known as Jim Corbett. 4. None of the plaintiffs appeared in the witness box and as such an adverse inference against them should have been drawn. They have failed to prove either title or possession over the disputed land. 5. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the documentary evidence filed by them which are in the nature of photostat copies either by producing the original documents or by producing a witness to prove their genuineness and correctness. They are forged and fictitious documents and have not come from proper custody. 79. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgement of trial Court is not based on pleading and admissible evidence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgement under appeal cannot be sustained. The appeal is liable to be allowed. 80. Before parting with the case, we have tried to find out the truth of the matter and extensively examined the original record of the Court below. The Apex Court in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) (supra) has observed that Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. The Apex Court in para 52 of the report has laid down as follows : “52. Truth is the foundation of justice. It must be the endeavour of all the judicial officers and judges to ascertain truth in every matter and no stone should be left unturned in achieving this object. The Apex Court in para 52 of the report has laid down as follows : “52. Truth is the foundation of justice. It must be the endeavour of all the judicial officers and judges to ascertain truth in every matter and no stone should be left unturned in achieving this object. Courts must give greater emphasis on the veracity of pleadings and documents in order to ascertain the truth.” 81. Having regard to what has been said above, we are of the opinion that the plaintiffs have not approached the Civil Court for vindication of their rights but more to get the seal of approval on their fraudulent acts. It is known that the Jim Corbett Park is one of the oldest national park of the country to preserve the faun and fauna. The park is known for its initiative Project Tiger, for endangered Bengal tiger of India. The total area of the reserve is 1318.54 sq. km. consisting 520 sq. km. of core area and 797.72 sq. km. of buffer area. After India’s Independence in 1947, the park was renamed as Ramganga National Park. But in 1956 it was renamed as Jim Carbett National Park in the memory of Colonel Jim Corbet. The land in dispute as come in the inquiry report was buffer land of the aforesaid park. The persons who were responsible to protect the land, it is unfortunate, are its grabbers. The fraud committed by the plaintiffs came to surface only when an inquiry was initiated that there is no official record to show Rani Nagla as revenue village. 82. The appeal is allowed with cost throughout. Impugned judgement dated 30.5.2005 and decree dated 8.7.2005 are set aside and the original suit No. 545/1991 (Ajay Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) is dismissed. ——————