JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. dated 28.9.2005, passed in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1990. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have instituted suit for possession against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). According to the averments made by the plaintiffs, one Sakina Bibi (predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs) was granted nautor land, as detailed in the plaint, on 16.9.1972 and 28.6.1974, respectively. The mutation was also attested in her name. Smt. Sakina Bibi died on 28.3.1982. The suit land was inherited by her sons, who are the plaintiffs. The grievance of the plaintiffs, in a nut shell, is that the defendants in collusion with revenue staff got themselves incorporated in the revenue record as non-occupancy tenants, though they have not paid any rent. The revenue entries were wrong, illegal and against the provisions of law. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, they were in fact inducted as tenants, during the consolidation on yearly rent of Rs. 5/- when Sakina Bibi herself applied for correction of Khasra Girdawari which was decided in their favour. However, in the alternative, they pleaded having acquired title by virtue of agreement of sale which was executed by Sakina Bibi in their favour while she received Rs. 1750/-. She further agreed to execute the sale deed after getting the remainder amount of Rs. 750/- after the expiry of 15 years of period. 4. The replication was filed by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court framed the issues on 2.1.1989. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 5.3.1990. The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1990. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur, allowed the same on 28.9.2005. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 28.11.2005: “1. Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence, when on the material on record it was established that the appellants were inducted as tenants by Ms. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 28.11.2005: “1. Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence, when on the material on record it was established that the appellants were inducted as tenants by Ms. Sakina Bibi and correction of revenue records ordered during consolidation proceedings and when the appellant had also come in possession of the property in part performance of the agreement of sale deed Ext. DW-2/A and hence decree for possession could not be passed in respect of the suit land? 2. Whether the findings of the court below that agreement Ext. DW-2/A was void and opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act is sustainable in law and it was open to the plaintiff to raise the said plea more particularly after the expiry of 15 years of the grant of patta and the agreement Ext. DW-2/A was enforceable in law? 3. Whether on the assumption that agreement Ext. DW-2/A was void, the possession of the appellant had not become adverse and the plea of adverse possession could not be sustained when open, hostile and continuous possession of the plaintiff for more than 12 years before the institution of the suit was made out? 4. Whether on the pleadings of the parties and the material on record, the suit in the civil courts was maintainable and the findings of the court below declaring the revenue record and the ownership conferred on the appellant as contrary to law and are not sustainable in law?” 6. Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, Advocate, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, more particularly, agreement Ext. DW-2/A. He also contended that the terms and conditions of agreement Ext. DW-2/A were not in terms of Section 23 of the Contract Act. He also contended that his clients have acquired title of the suit land by way of adverse possession. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates on both the sides and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates on both the sides and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 8. PW-1 Sujjad deposed that the name of his mother was Sakina Bibi. She was granted nautor land at Bhrari, measuring 6 bighas 7 biswas. She was put into possession. She died in the year 1982. Thereafter, they came into the possession. The defendants were never inducted as tenants by her mother. No agreement was ever entered into between his mother and defendants for the sale of the land. He has denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that her mother has received wheat towards Galla Batai. The land was allotted to his mother in the year 1972 and 1974, respectively. 9. DW-1 Paras Ram deposed that they have purchased the land in the year 1956-57 at village Bhrari. The disputed land was ‘charrand’ (pasture). He occupied the same in the year 1957. The suit land abutted his land. He developed the land. However, Sakina Bibi’s husband, Hussain Beg got the land allotted in the name of his wife. The consolidation took place in the year 1975 and Sakina Bibi submitted an application for correction in girdawri record for a sum of Rs. 5/- as rent for inducting them as tenants. They used to pay Rs. 5/- per annum to Sakina Bibi. She also entered into an agreement to sell the land after 15 years for a consideration of Rs. 2500/-. They were continuing as tenants over the suit land. In case, they are not tenants, in the alternative, they have become owners on the basis of the agreement. They were in possession of the suit land for the last 33 years. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Patwari was not present at the time when they had taken over the possession. However, in the year 1962-63, tatima was prepared qua 7 bighas of land. He also admitted that Patwari undertakes girdawri after every six months. He did not know as to how many jamabandies were prepared after 1956. Agreement was written by Tulsi Ram in the Court premises. A sum of Rs. 1700/- was paid at the time when the agreement was scribed and Rs. He also admitted that Patwari undertakes girdawri after every six months. He did not know as to how many jamabandies were prepared after 1956. Agreement was written by Tulsi Ram in the Court premises. A sum of Rs. 1700/- was paid at the time when the agreement was scribed and Rs. 750/- was to be paid later on at the time of making the correction in the girdawri. They became tenants in the year 1976. 10. DW-2 Sukh Dev has testified that he has signed the agreement DW-2/A. It was scribed in his presence by Tulsi Ram at the instance of Sakina Bibi. The contents of the same were read over to Sakina Bibi. She after admitting the contents of the same to be true and correct, put her thumb impression. In the first sentence of his cross-examination, he admitted that the possession was not given to the defendants. The earnest amount was also not paid in his presence. 11. DW-3 Durga Ram deposed that defendants were in possession of the suit land for the last 30-33 years. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no money was paid in his presence. Sakina Bibi has submitted an application for making necessary entries in the girdawri. His statement was recorded by the Patwari. The statement of Sakina Bibi was written by C.O himself. He did not remember as to whether Sakina Bibi has signed it or not. 12. DW-4 Telu Ram has also signed Ext. DW-2/A. It was scribed by Tulsi Ram. The contents of the same were read over and explained to Sakina Bibi, who after admitting the same to be correct put her thumb impression. Thereafter, they signed the same. He also admitted that neither Patwari nor Kanungo had visited the spot to deliver possession. 13. DW-5 Bhagat Ram deposed that he knew Sakina Bibi. Sakina was paid Rs. 10/- as chakota for 2 years from Ram Parkash and others. He scribed receipt dated 17.12.1981 vide Ext. DW-5/A. The contents of the receipt were read over and thereafter, Sakina Bibi put her thumb impression. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the receipt was in torn condition and tape was affixed over the same. 14. DW-6 Sohan Lal has proved register Ext. DW-6/A. Sakina Bibi had submitted an application for making correction in the girdawri. It was exhibited. It was deposited in the record room on 27.10.1976 and destroyed on 8.6.1983. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the receipt was in torn condition and tape was affixed over the same. 14. DW-6 Sohan Lal has proved register Ext. DW-6/A. Sakina Bibi had submitted an application for making correction in the girdawri. It was exhibited. It was deposited in the record room on 27.10.1976 and destroyed on 8.6.1983. He proved (Talfi/Goshwara Register) Ext. DW-6/A. 15. The defendants have not disputed the ownership of the suit land. It is also not disputed that Sakina Bibi was the owner of the suit land. According to the jamabdndi for the year 1985-86 Ext. PA, nautor land was allotted to Sakina Bibi. The mutation No. 120 vide Ext. PX and PF were also attested in favour of Sakina Bibi. The mutation was also attested in favour of the plaintiffs after the death of Sakina Bibi vide Ext. G. The very fact that the defendants have taken the plea of adverse possession pre-supposes that they have admitted the ownership of the suit land to be of Sakina Bibi. However, the fact of the matter is that they have not led any evidence to prove the ingredients of adverse possession. The case set up by the defendants is also that Sakina Bibi, mother of the plaintiffs had moved an application before the Consolidation Officer and Khasra girdawri was corrected by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 27.9.1976 and rent of Rs. 5/- per annum was settled between Smt. Sakina Bibi and the defendants. She also took one quintal of wheat as rent of land. Smt. Sakina Bibi, thereafter entered into agreement to sell the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 2500/-. She had received Rs. 1750/-. She also agreed to execute the sale deed after getting Rs. 750/- after expiry of 15 years, as per Ext. DW-2/A. No witness of the defendants has deposed that the possession of the defendants over the suit land was in denial of the right of the true owner. 16. The defendants, in their written statement, have not pleaded that they were inducted as tenants. Their simple case was that Sh. Paras Ram was in possession of the suit land since 1957 and Sakina Bibi and her husband had promised not to dispossess him from the suit land when the same was allotted to her under the Nautor Rules. 16. The defendants, in their written statement, have not pleaded that they were inducted as tenants. Their simple case was that Sh. Paras Ram was in possession of the suit land since 1957 and Sakina Bibi and her husband had promised not to dispossess him from the suit land when the same was allotted to her under the Nautor Rules. PW-1 Sujjad, as noticed hereinabove, has deposed that the suit land was granted to his mother under the nautor scheme and they have inherited the suit property after the death of their mother. He has categorically deposed that his mother has never inducted the defendants as tenants nor received any rent. He also deposed that no agreement was ever executed between Sakina Bibi and defendants. 17. DW-1 Paras Ram has deposed that the consolidation took place in the year 1975-76. Smt. Sakina Bibi had submitted an application for inducting them as tenants. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Patwari had not visited the spot. DW-2 Sukh Dev has deposed that agreement Ext. DW-2/A was scribed by Tulsi Ram. Smt. Sakina Bibi had put her thumb impression over the same. He has also signed the same. He also admitted that the possession was never given to them in his presence. DW-3 Durga has though deposed that Consolidation Officer has himself written the statement of Sakina Bibi, however, the fact of the matter is that neither order dated 27.9.1976 nor the statement of Sakina Bibi has been placed on record. DW-3 Durga did not know whether Sakina Bibi has put her signatures on the document or not. 18. Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, Advocate, for the appellants has vehemently argued that the original order dated 27.9.1976 was lost and DW-6 Sohan Lal has also stated that record was destroyed. He has proved Ext. DW-6/A. In the absence of original order dated 27.9.1976 and the statement of Sakina Bibi on record, the learned first appellate Court was bound to draw adverse inference. 19. The witnesses produced by the defendants have nowhere stated that the defendants were inducted as tenants. They have only made statements with regard to their continuous possession. It would be pertinent to mention here at this stage that the Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 27.9.1976 after the alleged agreement dated 21.9.1976 Ext. 19. The witnesses produced by the defendants have nowhere stated that the defendants were inducted as tenants. They have only made statements with regard to their continuous possession. It would be pertinent to mention here at this stage that the Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 27.9.1976 after the alleged agreement dated 21.9.1976 Ext. DW- 2/A. There could not be any agreement contrary to the terms and conditions of patta within a period of 15 years. The foundation of order dated 27.9.1976 is agreement dated 21.9.1976, which is against the public policy. The same could not be given effect to. The agreement Ext. DW-2/A dated 21.9.1976 was not executable being against the public policy. The entries, thus made on the basis of the order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 27.9.1976 was illegal and incorrect. The tenancy was never created in favour of the defendants. The acts committed by the defendants were forbidden by law. It was for the defendants to prove the manner in which they were inducted as tenants but they have miserably failed to prove the same. 20. Now, as far as receipt Ext. DW-5/A, which is alleged to have been scribed by DW-5 Sh. Bhagat Ram is concerned, the same has rightly been discarded by the learned first Appellate Court. It was also employed to defeat the legal right of the plaintiffs to claim the suit land. Moreover, Ext. DW-5/A was also torn, as admitted by DW-5 Bhagat Ram himself. Even the stamp paper for executing DW-5/A did not bear the signatures or thumb impression of Sakina Bibi in token of purchase from the stamp vendor. Now, as far as plea of part performance is concerned, this defence was never taken by the defendants before the Courts below. The defendants have not pleaded all the ingredients of Section 53 or Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It was nobody’s case that the defendants have taken possession of the suit land for part performance of the contract or they being the transferee have performed or willing to perform their part of the contract. The land was initially owned by the State Government which was granted to Sakina Bibi for agricultural purposes. The plea taken by the defendants was itself self-contradictory. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 21. The land was initially owned by the State Government which was granted to Sakina Bibi for agricultural purposes. The plea taken by the defendants was itself self-contradictory. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 21. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.