JUDGMENT Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B.N. Upadhyaya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1989 passed by Sri Sant Lal Ram, VIth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh in Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1980 “Amar Deo Singh v. Arya Samaj, Lalganj and others”, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Munsif Haweli, Azamgarh dated 19.8.1980, (by which the Munsif had decreed Civil Suit No. 174 of 1979 of plaintiffs for injunction, eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation) dismissed the plaintiff’s suit with costs throughout. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit by the first Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal which was admitted on 21.12.1989 on following substantial question of law involved in the appeal : “(1) whether the appellate Court was right in relying on receipt dated 10.10.1944 and reversing the findings of trial Court that the same was a forged document” 3. Again on 14.9.2010 upon application of the plaintiffs-appellants, one more substantial question of law was framed as under : “(2) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree on the basis of title, even if relationship of landlord and tenant on which the suit was based, was not proved.” 4. brief facts relating to the present second appeal are that plaintiff No. 1 Arya Samaj, Lalganj through Secretary Girdhari Lal, plaintiff No. 2 Raj Nath Singh and plaintiff No. 3 Girdhari Lal filed a Civil Suit No. 174 of 1979 in the Court of Munsif Haweli, Azamgarh for obtaining a decree : (a) for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the house in dispute or raising constructions thereon, (b) for delivery of possession over the property shown by letters Ka, Kha, Sa, Da in favour of plaintiffs, (c) for a decree of Rs. 1800/- towards arrears of rent for three years, (d) for a decree of recovery of the damages for use and occupation, till date of delivery of possession and (e) cost of the suit. 5. 1800/- towards arrears of rent for three years, (d) for a decree of recovery of the damages for use and occupation, till date of delivery of possession and (e) cost of the suit. 5. The contention made in plaint in brief is that plaintiff No. 1 is a part of an institution, registered as Arya Pratinidhi Sabha in U.P. and plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3 are the main office bearers being President and Secretary; that the plaintiff No. 1 under Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P. is owner in possession of house shown by letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da in southern portion of which shown by letters Ka, Kha, Sa Da, the defendant is a tenant at a rent of Rs. 50/- per month; that the defendant is in arrears of rent since January, 1975 and due to non-payment of rent since considerable period, a notice was served on him terminating his tenancy, which was served on him on 5.1.1979 but neither any reply was given nor rent was paid nor the property was vacated by him rather he committed a mischief by removing the name of Arya Samaj which was ascribed with cement on the gate of property in suit, regarding which F.I.R. was also lodged in police station on 7.1.1979. 6. The defendant denied the allegations made in plaint and stated in his written statement that the plaintiffs have no right, title or concern with the property in suit and there has been no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant; that neither the defendant ever paid any rent to plaintiffs nor assured payment of alleged arrears of rent; that property in question situates in plot No. 557/1 area 190 Kadi which was obtained by his brother Basudev from Raja Jaunpur on lease on 7.10.1944 and since then the defendant and his brothers are in possession over the plot after raising constructions thereon; that neither there is any building of Arya Samaj on the spot, nor Arya Samaj was ever in occupation of property in suit, nor the name of Arya Samaj was ascribed over the gate nor was removed by the defendant; that the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 7. After evidence of parties, the trial Court decreed the civil suit with costs for the reliefs prayed for vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.1980. 7. After evidence of parties, the trial Court decreed the civil suit with costs for the reliefs prayed for vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.1980. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1980 in the Court of District Judge, Azamgarh which was allowed by impugned judgment and decree dated 18.8.1989, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1980 passed by Munsif Haweli, Azamgarh in Civil Suit No. 174 of 1979 “Arya Samaj, Lalganj v. Amar Deo Singh”. Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed with costs throughout. Hence the plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved, have filed this second appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed with costs throughout. Hence the plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved, have filed this second appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned first appellate Court has acted wrongly in holding that plaintiffs have failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further in relying on the receipt dated 10.10.1944 in favour of brother of defendant (through which defendant claims title) which was adjudged to be a forged document by the trial Court; that since appellants have proved their title over disputed property so even if they are found to have failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendant, merely on the basis of their title over the property in suit, they are entitled for a decree of injunction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant from the property in dispute; that the findings given by trial Court were correct and it was rightly held by the trial Court that the receipt regarding lease of payment of Nazrana in lieu of lease is forged one and the title of plaintiffs as well as relationship of landlord and tenant has been established; that the first appellate Court has wrongly displaced the findings given by the trial Court and acted wrongly in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title as well as the relationship of landlord and tenant; that the land under property in question was leased in favour of Thakur Prasad by Raja Krishna Dutt Dubey vide registered lease deed dated 16.4.1935 by which two plot No. 557/2 190 Karis and plot No. 921 040 Karis total 230 Karis were leased in favour of Thakur Prasad with a right to raise constructions thereon; that it is proved from the evidence on record that Thakur Prasad raised constructions of a house over the leased property No. 557/2, 190 Karis and sold it to Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow by a registered sale-deed dated 9.11.1945; that since Thakur Prasad was a lessee, so on transfer of lease hold rights in the house constructed over the leased property by him in view of condition mentioned in clause No. 3 of lease deed dated 16.4.1935, Raja Yadvendra Dutt Dubey son of Krishna Dutt Dubey filed Civil Suit No. 102 of 1946 against Thakur Prasad Lal and Arya Pratinidhi Maha Sabha, Lucknow stating that since Thakur Prasad has sold the property in favour of defendant No. 2 Arya Pratinidhi Maha Sabha, Lucknow vide registered sale-deed dated 9.11.1945 for a sum of Rs. 800/-, he is entitled to get 1/4 share of consideration; that the above suit was decreed; that from above evidence on record, it is fully proved that the plaintiffs are owners of the property in suit by way of registered sale-deed executed by Thakur Prasad and are landlords also since they had let out the property in suit to the defendant; that even if the plaintiffs are found to have failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendant, they are still entitled for a decree prayed for. He further contended that had it been a suit for eviction on the ground of tenancy filed before the Small Cause Court under the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, upon failing to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant, his suit had to fail, but since he has filed a regular suit so despite his failing to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant, since the defendant has failed to establish his title, the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for ejectment of defendant. 10. Relying on the case laws laid down in the cases of Lachman Das and another v. Mulchand and another, AIR 1923 (All) 411, Mohammad Mian v. Jugeshwar Prasad, AIR (38) 1951 Patna 550 and Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Gopal Ji, 2016(1) ADJ 40 , learned counsel for the appellants contended that in above cases though the plaintiff had failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant, but only on the strength of proof of his title over the property in suit, the decree of ejectment of defendant was passed. 11. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to plead or prove themselves to be the owners and landlords of the property in question; that by way of execution of registered sale-deed by Raja Krishna Dutt Dubey in favour of Thakur Prasad lease of plot No. 557/2 and 921, and further by execution of a sale-deed, in respect of house allegedly constructed over plot No. 557/2 on 9.11.1945 in favour of Arya Pratinidhi Maha Sabha, Lucknow, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right or title in the property in suit; that Arya Pratinidhi Maha Sabha, Lucknow has not filed suit rather the suit has been filed by Arya Samaj, Lalganj claiming himself to be part of registered body known as Arya Pratinidhi Shabha; that in the entire plaint there is no whisper that the property in suit is situate over plot No. 557/2 and that when and how Arya Samaj, Lalganj the alleged part of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, acquired right and title in the property purchased by registered body the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha; that the suit has been filed simplicitor on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties which ought to have been filed before the Judge, Small Causes Court and merely by filing a civil suit on original side, in absence of any pleadings or evidence that the defendant is trespasser over the property in suit, despite proving their alleged title (which they have failed to prove), the plaintiffs may not be entitled for a decree of injunction, ejectment or recovery against the defendant, who is in undisputed and established possession over the property in suit in his own rights; that the case law relied by the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case; that it is settled principle of law as laid down by Apex Court that even trespasser is entitled to maintain his possession and cannot be evicted except by the true owner; that learned first appellate Court has rightly held that the trial Court had acted wrongly in decreeing the suit by placing burden of proof of all the issues on the defendant while in civil suits, the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs may not seek benefit of weakness, if any, in the case of defendant and if he fails to prove his case, irrespective of the fact that the pleas taken by the defendant were not proved, the plaintiff cannot succeed and may not be entitled for a decree. 12. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that learned first appellate Court has given categorical findings of fact after detailed analysis of the evidence on record and has found that the trial Court acted wrongly and illegally in placing burden of proof of all the issues on the defendant and without appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit. The first appellate Court has recorded a specific finding in para 9 of the judgment that plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the property in suit and also failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendant. 13. The above findings are based on analysis of evidence on record and neither there is any manifest error nor any perversity in above findings of fact. It is also noteworthy that plaintiffs are not the vendees under the sale-deed dated 9.11.1945 rather vendee is Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, the larger and registered body. There is nothing on record to show that the property purchased by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow was ever transferred by it to plaintiff Arya Samaj, Lalganj. Moreover it is also not the case of plaintiff that under any resolution passed by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow the rights of management of property in suit were given to Arya Samaj Lalganj and no copy of any such resolution is on record. The plaintiffs have failed to show that while the sale-deed was executed in favour of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow, how the Arya Samaj Lalganj, Azamgarh was competent to maintain the suit for injunction and possession. 14. There are no pleadings to the effect that the property in question lies in plot No. 557/2 area 190 Kadi which was purchased vide registered sale-deed dated 9.11.1945, while the defendant claims it to be part of plot No. 557/1 area 190 Kadi, allegedly leased in favour of his brother on 7/10.10.1944. 15. There is no pleadings that since before filing of suit the defendant denied the title of plaintiffs and relationship of landlord and tenant and that defendant is a trespasser over the property in suit. 15. There is no pleadings that since before filing of suit the defendant denied the title of plaintiffs and relationship of landlord and tenant and that defendant is a trespasser over the property in suit. So by not filing the suit before competent Court of Judge, Small Cause Courts, by filing civil suit on original side, the plaintiffs may not be held entitled to a decree for ejectment on the strength of his alleged title over the same, even in absence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant. 16. I find that the case laws relied by the appellants are based on totally different facts where ejectment of defendant was sought on ground of his being trespasser. 17. In the case of Lachman Das and another v. Mulchand and another (supra), the defendant had taken a plea of acquiring ownership by virtue of adverse possession for more than 12 years and since he failed to prove his ownership by adverse possession, the ejectment decree was passed by Courts below in favour of plaintiff. In above case since the plaintiff had sold the property pending suit and was not owner on the date of decree, allowing the appeal of defendant, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed. 18. Similarly, the facts of the case of Mohammad Mian v. Jugeshwar Prasad (supra) are also different from the case in hand and the appellants are not entitled to any discretion of Court. 19. It noteworthy that in the case of Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Gopal Ji (supra) there was a specific averment in para 14 of the plaint that the defendant is a trespasser and since in view of a specific finding of his being trespasser by the Courts below, upon proof of plaintiff to be true owner of the disputed property, the eviction of trespasser was held lawful and second appeal filed by the defendant-trespasser was dismissed. 20. As per plaint case plot No. 557/2 area 190 Karis and plot No. 921 area 40 karis were leased to Thakur Prasad, who sold the house over plot No. 557/2 area 190 to Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. This fact has not been disputed and the rights and title of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha over the house constructed on plot No. 557/2 area 190 Karis is not in dispute. This fact has not been disputed and the rights and title of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha over the house constructed on plot No. 557/2 area 190 Karis is not in dispute. it is noteworthy that there are no pleadings or evidence to prove that (i) the property in suit situate in plot No. 557/2 and (ii) that Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow ever transferred it in favour of plaintiff Arya Samaj Lalganj, Azamgarh or authorised it to file suit. On the other hand the defendant has specifically pleaded that he obtained the land plot No. 557/1 area 190 Karis through lease on 7.10.1944 through rent receipt dated 10.10.1944 in the name of his brother and that the property in suit lies in plot No. 557/1 area 190 Karis. The first appellate Court has rightly displaced the findings of trial Court in respect of the receipt dated 10.10.1944 on account of alleged minor contradictions based on misreading of evidence by trial Court. It is pertinent to mention that the first appellate Court in para 12 of the judgment has given a specific finding that in absence of survey map it cannot be ascertained as to whether the disputed land is situated in plot No. 557/1 of defendant and defendant cannot be benefited, but since the plaintiff has failed to prove himself to be owner and landlord of the property in suit, his suit bound to fail and is liable to be dismissed. 21. I am of the considered view that (1) the first appellate Court was correct in relying on the evidence of defendant in respect of lease rent receipt dated 10.10.1944 in the name of his brother and was right in reversing the erroneous finding given by trial Court and (2) since the plaintiffs have failed to prove the ownership and landlordship over the property in suit, may not be entitled to a decree for permanent injunction, eviction of defendant or for recovery of alleged arrears of rent or damages for use and occupation from defendant. The two substantial questions of law, involved in the appeal are liable be decided in affirmative and negative respectively. 22. The two substantial questions of law, involved in the appeal are liable be decided in affirmative and negative respectively. 22. In view of the discussions made above, I find that the appellants have failed to show any illegality or incorrectness in the findings recorded by the first appellate Court in the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.8.1989 and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside, the impugned judgment and decree, and restore the decree passed by Munsif Haweli, Azamgarh on 19.8.1980. The appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. 23. The second appeal is dismissed, accordingly. 24. The parties shall bear their own costs of the second appeal. 25. Interim orders, if any, stand discharged. 26. Let record be sent back to trial Court and consigned to record room.