JUDGMENT : Pankaj Naqvi, J. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh learned counsel for appellant on the admission of second appeal. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree of the courts below, whereby suit for permanent prohibitory injunction has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as they were described in trial court, i.e. as plaintiff/defendant, unless specified otherwise. 4. Kehri Singh, the plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegation that he is the owner in possession of plot no.229 (65 square meters) (property in dispute) situate at mauza Satta Kothi, Qasba Etmadpur, Agra and that the defendants without any title or possession are interfering in peaceful possession. It was further alleged that the said property was let out to one Naikse Ram son of Jauhari and that after his death, possession of said property was handed over to plaintiff. It was further alleged that defendants no.3 and 4 executed a forged sale deed of property in dispute in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2. As defendants threatened peaceful possession of plaintiff, hence the Suit. 5. The suit was contested by defendants on the ground that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of property in dispute and on the contrary, defendant no.1, i.e. Mangal Singh was the erstwhile owner, who purchased the same from its earlier owner Mukesh Babu and Smt. Munni, defendants no. 3 and 4 vide a registered sale deed dated 26.04.2005 and since then they are in possession over the property in dispute. 6. The pleadings were exchanged and evidence was led. The burden was upon plaintiff to prove his title and possession in order to succeed in the suit for injunction. It was nowhere pleaded in the plaint as to how and in what manner, plaintiff-appellant acquired ownership rights over the property in dispute although plaintiff alleged that Naikse Ram was the tenant, but admittedly no evidence whatsoever was filed by plaintiff to establish tenancy of said Naikse Ram. Thus the question of Naikse Ram delivering possession to plaintiff also does not arise. PW-1 stated that there was no sale deed or any instrument in his favour, which could establish title or possessory right over the property in dispute. PW-2 Om Prakash could also not depose that Naikse Ram was the tenant of plaintiff. 7. Thus the question of Naikse Ram delivering possession to plaintiff also does not arise. PW-1 stated that there was no sale deed or any instrument in his favour, which could establish title or possessory right over the property in dispute. PW-2 Om Prakash could also not depose that Naikse Ram was the tenant of plaintiff. 7. It was contended that as proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated against plaintiff-appellant, that itself was sufficient to suggest that it was the plaintiff, who was the owner in possession of property in dispute. 8. Be that at it may, this fact alone could not constitute or confer any right on plaintiff to institute a suit for injunction and that too against the real owner of property in dispute, who happened to be the defendants. No substantial question of law arises. 9. No other plea has been urged. 10. This second appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs at the admission stage. Appeal Dismissed.