JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Kkan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, for the petitioners and Sri Hari Om Singh, for contesting respondent-3. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Civil Judge (Senior Division) (respondent-2) dated 26.04.2014, granting ad-interim injunction, restraining the petitioners from interfering in possession of respondent-3 over the land in dispute during pendency of the suit and Additional District Judge (respondent-1) dated 30.05.2014, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, filed from the aforesaid order. 3. Ram Pal Verma (respondent-3) filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 49 of 2014), for permanent injunction, restraining Sandeep and others (the petitioners) from interfering with his possession over plot 410, consisting one room with khaprail roof, situated in village Bairampur Barawan, pargana Akbarpur, district Ambedkar Nagar. It has been stated in the plaint that the land in dispute was holding of Sabhapati and Patandeen sons of Durbali. Sabhapati died issueless and was inherited by his brother Patandeen. Patandeen also died and was inherited by his son Ram Pal Verma, (the plaintiff), who was owner in possession of the land in dispute. Sabhapati and Patandeen sons of Durbali, through a registered agreement dated 05.09.2000 granted licence to Moti Ram Verma son of Ram Bachan Verma, Narendra Kumar Verma son of Hari Ram Verma, residents of village Bharthuwa Saraiya, pargana Akbarpur, district Ambedkar Nagar, for using a portion of plot 410, shown by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map, for -2- establishing brick kiln. After completion of 10 years, the term of the licence dated 05.09.2000, Narendra Kumar Verma and others, stopped works brick kiln, over the land in dispute and handed over possession of it to Patandeen. The defendants, who are very influential persons, having high political approach in the locality, threatened the plaintiff to take forcible possession over the land in dispute, 7-8 days back and run brick kiln over it although the father of the plaintiff did not grant any licence to the defendants nor entered into any agreement with them, permitting to run brick kiln. In spite of the request of the plaintiff, for not giving illegal threats and not to try to take possession over the disputed land and run brick kiln, against his will, the defendants were not ready for any compromise outside the Court and they had finally refused for any compromise on 09.02.2014 as such the plaintiff was left with no alternative, except to file the suit. The plaintiff also filed an application for interim injunction along with the plaint, in which allegations made the plaint were repeated and he has stated that the plaintiff had prima facie case, balance of convenience was in his favour and in case, interim injunction is not granted, he would suffer grave and irreparable loss. 4. The petitioners filed an objection dated 04.03.2014 to the application for interim injunction, stating therein that suit was filed on false allegations concealing material facts. The plaintiff has no concern with the land in dispute nor he or his father were ever in possession of it from last 14-15 years. Plot 410 was recorded in the name of Sabhapati and Patandeen, who through a registered agreement dated 05.09.2000 gave it to Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma, for establishing brick kiln for a period of ten years. On the basis this agreement, brick kiln was established and functioned up to 30.08.2010, as admitted in the application for interim injunction. In this agreement, there is a clause for renewal of the lease after expiry of the period of ten years. Narendra Kumar Verma and others could not run brick kiln due to their economic problem as such with the consent of Patandeen, they sub-let the brick kiln to the defendants and took their expenses of establishing infrastructures of brick kiln, from the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants have constructed office building, store room and servant quarters over the land in dispute. They have also taken adjacent land for taking soil for manufacture of the bricks. The defendants have invested more than Rs. One crore in establishing brick kiln business. After completion of period of ten years of the previous lease, Patandeen entered into a fresh agreement with the defendants dated 01.09.2010 and let out it to them for a period of ten years and took an advance of Rs. one lakh from the defendants and fixed rent of Rs.50,000/- per year. One crore in establishing brick kiln business. After completion of period of ten years of the previous lease, Patandeen entered into a fresh agreement with the defendants dated 01.09.2010 and let out it to them for a period of ten years and took an advance of Rs. one lakh from the defendants and fixed rent of Rs.50,000/- per year. Patandeen survived till 20.12.2013 and till then he continuously accepted rent of Rs.50,000/- per year in advance and permitted the defendants to run his brick kiln business and rent up to 30.08.2014 was paid. The defendants were continuously paying all the taxes, royalty and licence fee of brick kiln. In November 2010, the plaintiff in collusion of his father created hindrance in brick kiln business of the defendants. The defendants then filed O.S. No. 255 of 2010 for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and his father. After filing of the suit, the plaintiff and his father realised their guilt and assured the defendants that they would not create any hindrance. On their assurance and subsequent conduct, the defendants left attending aforesaid suit. Now after death of Patandeen, the plaintiff began to demand Rs.two lakhs more, which was refused by the defendants. Then this suit was filed on false allegations and concealment of material facts relating to establishment of brick kiln and other infrastructures of the defendants over the land in dispute, which is proved from various documentary evidence. 5. Trial Court issued Court Amin for spot inspection, who after spot inspection submitted his report dated 03.03.2014 along with a sketch map of the disputed property. In the report, it has been reported that in the disputed land one room with khaprail roof was existing in the southern side, on which a signboard of containing writing of "Surya Brick Field, Bairampur Birawan, Sandeep Verma, Advocate, Mobile No. 9918563401" was affixed. In the portions shown by O R S N, M Rs.and G F, cement sheet roofed constructions for labourers were existing. An old wall was existing at J I. A 'khandhar' was existing at F E D. Brick Kiln was existing at T U V W X Y. From flue of brick kiln smoke was emitting as the labourers were setting fire through woods. In the western side of flue, there was labourers residence of cement sheet. Unbaked bricks about 2.5 lakhs were collected in the eastern side of flue. In the western side of flue, there was labourers residence of cement sheet. Unbaked bricks about 2.5 lakhs were collected in the eastern side of flue. In the disputed land baked and unbaked bricks, coal and woods were collected. It was informed that about 20 lakhs baked bricks, 3 quintals coal and 10 quintals wood was lying. A hand pump was installed in the disputed land. The laborers were digging soil from the adjacent plots of Jiyaram Verma, Jagdish Prasad Verma, Surendra Verma and Shakuntala Devi and manufacturing bricks. About three hundred labourers were working. Various registers relating to account of labourers were also found there. None of the parties filed any objection to the Amin's Report dated 03.03.2014 and it was confirmed by the order dated 27.03.2014. 6. Respondent-3 filed his affidavit 'headed as Counter Affidavit' sworn on 10.03.2014, in which he had denied execution of deed dated 01.09.2010 by Patandeen and taking rent of Rs.50,000/- from the defendants. It has been stated that Narendra Kumar Verma and others had no authority to sublet without the consent of the landlord. The petitioners have not set up any infrastructures of brick kiln and the various thing of brick kiln were lying of the time of Narendra Kumar Verma. The plaintiff never acknowledged subletting nor gave any consent for running brick kiln by the defendants. The defendants have never run brick kiln in the land in dispute. 7. The petitioners filed an affidavit of Sandeep Kumar Verma sworn on 27.03.2014 'headed as Rejoinder Affidavit' and denied the allegations made in the affidavit of respondent-3. It has been stated that agreement dated 01.09.2010 was executed by the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved a complaint before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad on false allegations that the defendants had taken forcible possession over the land in dispute. In this complaint, it has been admitted that the defendants had run brick kiln in the land in dispute from 2008 to 31.08.2013 but falsely stated that the defendants were in illegal occupation of the land in dispute after 01.09.2013. On which an inquiry was conducted by Sub Inspector of Police of Police Station Kotwali, which application and report can be summoned from the office of Deputy Inspector General, Faizabad. On which an inquiry was conducted by Sub Inspector of Police of Police Station Kotwali, which application and report can be summoned from the office of Deputy Inspector General, Faizabad. The petitioners also filed several documents to prove that they had a licence to run brick kiln, they were regularly paying royalty for use of soil and trade tax on sale of bricks and the agreements dated 05.09.2000 and 01.09.2010, plaint of O.S. No. 255 of 2010, etc. 8. The application for interim injunction was heard by Civil Judge (respondent-2), who by dated 26.04.2014, held that in khatauni 1420 F-1425 F, land in dispute was recorded in the name of Patandeen. In khasra 1418 F, a part of plot 410 was shown in cultivation and crops of 'arhar' and gram were sown and a part was shown as uncultivated and brick kiln was shown. In other khasra crops of sugarcane, paddy, potato etc. were mentioned, which show possession of the plaintiff. From registered agreements dated 05.09.2000, it is proved that an area of 7590 sq. meter of plot 410 consisting one room of 20 X 10 feet and one tin shed of 10 X 10 feet was let out to Narendra and others for a period of ten years which contains a clause of renewal with the consent of the parties but after expiry of period of 10 years agreement was not renewed between the parties, as a result of which possession over the land in dispute was automatically returned back to the plaintiff. Photostat copies of the complaint allegedly moved by the plaintiff to Deputy Inspector General of Police and unregistered agreement dated 01.09.2010 were not admissible in evidence. The defendants could not prove that land in dispute was let out to them by the plaintiff or his father or they ever obtained possession over the land in dispute in legal manner. According to the provisions of Section 63 of the Easement Act, 1882, on expiry of period of licence, possession of licencee become illegal. Prima facie case of the plaintiff was proved. The defendants could not prove their legal possession as such balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff, in case interim injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer grave and irreparable loss. Prima facie case of the plaintiff was proved. The defendants could not prove their legal possession as such balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff, in case interim injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer grave and irreparable loss. On these findings the application for interim injunction was allowed and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute. 9. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2014) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Additional District Judge (respondent-10), who by order dated 30.05.2014, held that the plaintiff was recorded as bhumidhar of the land in dispute in the revenue record. Original agreement dated 01.09.2010 was not filed and photostat copy was not admissible in evidence thus the defendants have failed to proved their possession over the land in dispute. Although copy of the plaint of O.S. No. 255 of 2010 was filed but no evidence has been filed that the matter was compromised in this suit between the parties. Prima facie case of the plaintiff was proved. Balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. In case interim injunction is not granted, the plaintiff will suffer grave and irreparable loss. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 10. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that Sabhapati and Patandeen sons of Durbali let out the disputed land to Moti Ram Verma son of Ram Bachan Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma son of Hari Ram Verma, through a registered agreement dated 05.09.2000, for for establishing brick kiln over it. The land in dispute was bhumidhari land and in view of the provisions of Section 156, 166 and 189 (aa) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, they lost their title over the land in dispute. Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma have become sirdar of the land in dispute under Section 165 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The plaintiff did not inherit any right over the land in dispute after death of his father Patandeen, who died on 20.12.2013 nor ever acquired possession over it as the disputed land was earlier in possession of Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma and since 2008, it is in possession of the petitioners. The plaintiff has no locus stadi to file the suit. The plaintiff has no locus stadi to file the suit. The defendants took the case that Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma sub-let the brick kiln to the defendants with the consent of Patandeen in the year 2008. Thereafter, the defendants invested more than Rs.one crore in the infrastructure of the brick kiln. After expiry of the term of previous lease, Patandeep let out the land in dispute to the petitioners on 01.09.2010 for running business of brick kiln for another period of 10 years. The brick kiln was found in running condition on the spot at the time of spot inspection by Court Amin. About three hundred labourers were found working on the spot. About 2.5 lakhs unbaked bricks, 20 lakhs baked bricks, 3 quintals coal and 10 quintals wood were lying there. A hand pump was installed in the disputed land. The petitioners filed various documents relating brick kiln licence, trade tax and royalty, papers wage registers of labourers etc. Running of the businesses of brick kiln by the petitioners from long time was proved from the various documents. The Courts be to have illegally held that respondent-3 was in possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiff, in his complaint made to Deputy Inspector General of Police admitted that the petitioners had run brick kiln from 2008 to 31.08.2013. Neither in the plaint nor in the affidavits filed in support of interim injunction application, respondent-3, ever claimed that materials lying on the spot belonged to him or any other persons. No objection has been to the Amin's Report. Running business could not be stopped by interim injunction as held by this Court in Akbar Ali v. DJ and others, 2004 (22) LCD 744. Respondent-3 filed the suit, concealing material facts and the suit was liable to be dismissed as held by Supreme Court in Oswal Fats & Oil Ltd. v. Commissioner (2010) 4 SCC 728. The orders of the Courts below are illegal and liable to be set aside. 11. Respondent-3 filed the suit, concealing material facts and the suit was liable to be dismissed as held by Supreme Court in Oswal Fats & Oil Ltd. v. Commissioner (2010) 4 SCC 728. The orders of the Courts below are illegal and liable to be set aside. 11. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for respondent-3 submitted that Sabhapati and Patandeen granted a licence dated 05.09.2000 to Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma as such the provisions of Section 156, 166 and 189 (aa) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 are not attracted in this case as held by this Court in Teck Chand v. DDC and others, 1969 RD 26 and Anant Ram v. Sheikh Mohammad, 1981 RD 341. The name of Patandeen and after his death, name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record and Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma did not claim any right in the land in dispute. In the revenue records, cultivation of the petitioner has been recorded in the khasra. Both the Courts below concurrently held that respondent-3 was in possession over the land in dispute. An injunction can be granted to protect an owner from illegal dispossession and possession of rank trespasser can not be treated as possession as held by Division Bench of this Court in Pramod Kappor v. Nanu B. Amin, 1992 All C J 1066 (DB). Photostat copy of the alleged complaint made to Deputy Inspector General of Police was not admissible in evidence. It was not proved that this complaint was filed by respondent-3 or his father. Unregistered deed dated 01.09.2010 was not executed by Patandeen and a fabricated document. Otherwise also, unregistered deed dated 01.09.2010, purporting to be a lease deed for a period of 10 years was not admissible in evidence in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 as a lease for a period of more than one year can only be made through a registered document under Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It cannot be read for collateral purposes. Amin's Report has corroborative value and cannot be treated as an independent evidence. The writ petition is concluded with the findings of fact and is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the evidence on record. It cannot be read for collateral purposes. Amin's Report has corroborative value and cannot be treated as an independent evidence. The writ petition is concluded with the findings of fact and is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the evidence on record. So far as arguments of the counsel for the petitioners that Sabhapati and Patandeen had lost their title over the land in dispute in view of Section 156, 166 and 189 (aa) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 as it was let out to Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma through registered lease deed dated 05.09.2000 and Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma had become sirdar of it under Section 165 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, is concerned, the petitioners in paragraph-9 of their objection filed in the application for interim injunction have stated that the father of respondent-3 executed an agreement dated 01.09.2010 in favour of the petitioners and on its basis the petitioners had made various infrastructures over the land in dispute and started brick kiln business. In paragraph-6 of this objection, they have stated that Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma sub-let the brick kiln to him with consent of Patandeen. Thus the petitioners claimed themselves to be lessee of Patandeen. In view of Section 116 of Evidence Act, 1872, they cannot be permitted to deny the title of landlord. As such this Court is not inclined to examine the controversy raised by the counsel for the petitioners, in this respect. 13. Both the Courts below held that respondent-3 was in possession over the land in dispute. Respondent-3 neither in the plaint nor in Counter Affidavit filed on 10.03.2014 had stated that he or any other person was running the brick kiln. In paragraph-3 of the Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that all the things of brick kiln, lying on the spot, belonged to Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma, who according to the plaint allegations closed their business on 30.08.2010. They have also not stated that after filing of the suit, the petitioners had taken forcible possession over the land in dispute. They have also not stated that after filing of the suit, the petitioners had taken forcible possession over the land in dispute. So far as reply to allegations made by the petitioners that brick kiln was sub-let by Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma to them with the consent of landlord, in paragraph-2 of the Counter Affidavit, only reply was given that Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma had no right to sub-let. Amin's Report shows that a signboard of containing writing of "Surya Brick Field, Bairampur Birawan, Sandeep Verma, Advocate, Mobile No. 9918563401" was affixed in the room existing over the land in dispute. In the portions shown by O R S N, M Rs.and G F, cement sheet roofed constructions for labourers were existing. An old wall was existing at J I. A 'khandhar' was existing at F E D. Brick Kiln was existing at T U V W X Y. From flue of brick kiln smoke was emitting as the labourers were setting fire through woods. In the western side of flue, there was labourers residence of cement sheet. 2.5 lakhs unbaked bricks, about 20 lakhs baked bricks, 3 quintals coal and 10 quintals wood were lying. A hand pump was installed in the disputed land. The laborers were digging soil from the adjacent plots of Jiyaram Verma, Jagdish Prasad Verma, Surendra Verma and Shakuntala Devi and manufacturing bricks over the land in dispute. About three hundred labourers were working. Various registers relating to account of labourers were also found there. 20 lakhs baked bricks cannot be manufactured in a short time. The petitioners filed mass of documentary evidence to show that they had licence to run brick kiln, they were regularly paying royalty for using soil in manufacture of bricks and paid trade tax on sale of bricks. They were paying wages to the workers. All these documents have been illegally ignored by the two Courts below. The Courts below relied upon the khasra entries, which related to cultivated portion of plot 410 which are not relevant. Thus Court below have illegally ignored to relevant evidence on record and relied upon irrelevant evidence to record findings that respondent-3 was in possession over the land in dispute. Findings in this respect is illegal. Respondent-3 was not in possession over the disputed land. 14. Thus Court below have illegally ignored to relevant evidence on record and relied upon irrelevant evidence to record findings that respondent-3 was in possession over the land in dispute. Findings in this respect is illegal. Respondent-3 was not in possession over the disputed land. 14. The arguments of the counsel for respondent-3 that possession of the petitioners at the most can be possession of a rank trespasser and cannot be recognised under the law. On the other hand the petitioners have stated that brick kiln was sub-let to them in the year 2008 with the consent of Patandeen, who after expiry of the term of previous lease executed a fresh deed dated 01.09.2010, permitting the petitioner to use the land in dispute for a further period of ten years and their possession was possession of a lessee. The petitioners filed agreement dated 01.09.2010 allegedly executed by Patandeen in their favour. So far as genuineness of this document is concerned, it has to be proved at the time of evidence. Objection raised by the counsel for respondent-3 that unregistered deed dated 01.09.2010, purporting to be a lease deed for a period of 10 years was not admissible in evidence as a lease for a period of more than one year can only be made through a registered document under Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It cannot be read for any collateral purposes also. In this respect Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908 is relevant, which is quoted below:- "49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. No document required by Section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),] to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: [Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under CHAPTER II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]" 15. Supreme Court in Rana Vidyabhushan Singh v. Rati Ram, 1969 UJ (SC) 86 held that Proviso to Section 49, however, permits the use of the document, even though unregistered, as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. In this view of the legal position the maintenance deed can be looked into for collateral purpose of ascertaining the nature of possession. Aforesaid judgment was followed in Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo, AIR 1981 SC 1937 and K.B. Saha v. Development Consultant Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 564 , in which it has been held that unregistered lease deed can be looked for the purposes of deciding nature of possession. In view of above, the document dated 01.09.2010 can be looked for collateral purposes and it cannot be said that the petitioners were rank trespasser. 16. Order 39 Rule 1 (c) C.P.C. provides that where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise that the defendants threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute Court may grant interim injunction restraining dispossession of the plaintiff. Supreme Court in Terene Traders v. Rameshcahnd Jamunadas & Co., AIR 1987 SC 1492 held that in case, the plaintiff was not in possession over the disputed property, no interim injunction can be granted. In this case possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute was not proved. On the other hand, permitting the petitioners to use the land in dispute for brick kiln was prima facie proved. Respondent-3 could not prove his prima face case for grant of interim injunction. 17. So far as balance of convenience is concerned, the allegations of the petitioners that they had invested huge amount in infrastructure of brick kin as the land in dispute was let out to them. In case, the petitioners are restrained from running brick kiln over the land in dispute, grave and irreparable loss will occur to them as such balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners and not in favour of respondent-3. 18. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. In case, the petitioners are restrained from running brick kiln over the land in dispute, grave and irreparable loss will occur to them as such balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners and not in favour of respondent-3. 18. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Civil Judge (Senior Division) (respondent-2) dated 26.04.2014, granting ad-interim injunction in O.S. No. 49 of 2014, restraining the petitioners from interfering in possession of respondent-3 over the land in dispute during pendency of the suit and Additional District Judge (respondent-1) dated 30.05.2014, dismissing their appeal are set aside. Petition Allowed.