JUDGMENT Raghvendra Kumar, J. – The defect has been removed. 2. The office is directed to allot regular number to this Appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the defendants/appellants and counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. Initially the plaintiff-respondent instituted Suit No. 647 of 2011 against defendants/ appellants praying for mandatory injunction against defendants-appellants. The suit was decreed by Ist Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D.), Court No. 6, Aligarh vide order dated 28.11.2016 in favour of plaintiff-respondent and the defendants+-appellants were directed to remove their possession and hand over the land to the plaintiff-respondent. 4. The First Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal and has affirmed the judgment and order passed in Original Suit No. 647 of 2011. 5. Being aggrieved by judgment and orders of the courts below, the instant Second appeal is before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the defendants-appellants submitted that the State is a necessary party. It has further been submitted that the Land Ceiling Act was in operation. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the State is a necessary party because of the fact that when the land was handed over to the defendants/appellants, the Land Ceiling Act was effective and operative. 8. Further submission is that in view of the Section 57 of Electricity Act of 1910 and Section 123 of Electricity of 2003, it is the State of U.P. which is the owner of the property of the appellants. In view of Section 23 of Urban Land Ceiling Act any property in excess of the limits prescribed therein vests in the State and State becomes owner of the excess land. The learned counsel conceded that no such plea was raised through the W.S. 9. Further contention of the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants is that if the defendants/appellants are ejected in compliance of the decree of the Court then the persons who are being supplied energy through the sub-station would suffer to a great extent and much public exchequer involved in the erection of the sub-station, would go waste. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the following case laws in support of this contention. 1. 2008 (2)ADJ 321 (DB)(LB) - Bindu Sinha and others v. State of U.P.and others. 2. (2010) 6 SCC 427 - District Collector Srikakulanand & ors. v. Bagathi Krishna Rao and another, relevant para 16 of the judgment. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the following case laws in support of this contention. 1. 2008 (2)ADJ 321 (DB)(LB) - Bindu Sinha and others v. State of U.P.and others. 2. (2010) 6 SCC 427 - District Collector Srikakulanand & ors. v. Bagathi Krishna Rao and another, relevant para 16 of the judgment. 11. So far as the Bindu Sinha case (supra) is concerned, it specifically deals with the aspect of acquisition and payment of compensation. The fact involved in the aforesaid proposition of law is not identical to the present second appeal, hence it is of no avail. 12. So far as the second case District Collector Srikakulanand (supra) is concerned, this legal proposition of law is not disputed but while dealing with second appeal, in absence of the pleadings, the appellants/defendants would not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid ruling. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that no such argument can be sustained which is beyond the pleadings. 14. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the land was found in surplus and vested in the State of U.P. was handed over to the defendants can be sustained since the controversy regarding the surplus of land under the Land Ceiling Act attained finality at the stage of Hon. Apex Court and the Hon. Apex Court made an observation that the proceedings stand abated in view of the fact that Land Ceiling Act has been repealed. 15. The Hon. Apex Court has made an observation that the possession of respondent was not disputed by the State of U.P., hence Section 23 of Urban Land Ceiling Act would not be attracted. 16. So far as the submission made about section 57 and 123 of Electricity Act 2010 and 2003 respectively, even presuming that the property belongs to the State, the State cannot be treated to be a necessary party in absence of the pleadings. 17. So far as the infra structural scheme of the State Government under which the land in question was given to the defendant-appellant, it was incumbent upon the defendants/ appellants to plead such fact and adduce the evidence that the property was acquired by the State and under the Scheme it was duly conveyed in favour of the defendant-appellant through some document. No such evidence is available on record. 18. No such evidence is available on record. 18. So far as the question of public exchequer is concerned, the Court is exercising jurisdiction under section 100 C.P.C. and the scope of the second appeal is confined and it has to remain confined to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence and illegality, if any, committed by the learned courts below which give rise to some substantial question of law. Even presuming to the loss of exchequer, no direction can be issued in exercise of jurisdiction under section 100 C.P.C.,which is beyond the scope of section 100 C.P.C. 19. The learned trial court has appreciated the pleadings and evidence led and thereafter recorded the finding against the defendant. The First Appellate Court critically appraised the pleadings and evidence and the judgment of the trial court and by reasoned and speaking order, the appeal was dismissed. The findings of the courts below on the point of possession are concurrent. 20. The learned courts below have not misread the evidence in drawing the inference. More so, the counsel for defendants/appellants has failed to demonstrate that the findings have been recorded in the absence of evidence. 21. No substantial question of law arises warranting the interference of this Court. 22. The appeal is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.