JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and perused the record. 2. A registered sale deed dated 31.05.2001 was executed by the plaintiff-appellant in favour of the defendant-respondents and the Original Suit No.383 of 2010 was filed after nine years seeking cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that the signatures of the plaintiff (vendor) were obtained by fraud and, in fact, the plaintiff-appellant had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/-from the vendee and sale deed was neither intended to be executed nor actually executed. The other plea was that the sale deed was invalid for want of permission from the Competent Authority. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiff-appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and, therefore, as per Section 157-AA of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the Act, 1950), unless there was a permission accorded by the Competent Authority, sale deed could not be executed. He further submits that both the courts below have also erred in not correctly examining the plea of fraud and by merely observing that the sale deed being a registered document, there would be a presumption as regards its validity, the suit has been dismissed. He further submits that the plaintiff-appellant was not aware of the execution of sale deed and when proceedings for disbursement of compensation by Avas Vikas Parishad were held and the purchasers/ defendants put their claim for getting the compensation, the plaintiff-appellant came to know about the fraud committed with him and, therefore, the suit was filed. He also submits that as per Section 166 of the Act, 1950, any transfer made in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be void and, therefore, the sale deed would be void for want of compliance of Section 157-AA. 4. The Court has perused the entire record of proceedings attached to the appeal. 5. As far as the first argument based upon Section 157-AA of the Act, 1950 is concerned, the Court finds that there was no pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff-appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. 4. The Court has perused the entire record of proceedings attached to the appeal. 5. As far as the first argument based upon Section 157-AA of the Act, 1950 is concerned, the Court finds that there was no pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff-appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. The plea of permission from the Competent Authority was taken in paragraph no.10 of the plaint but it was not stated that permission, as contemplated under Section 157-AA, was required and even though it was not necessary to plead any section of the Statute, the pleading was to the effect that the property was given on lease by the State Government and, therefore, in absence of permission from the Competent Authority/ District Magistrate, sale could not be effected and the sale deed is void. 6. Sri Tyagi has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no.1 to the affidavit supporting stay application, which is a photostat copy of caste certificate dated 26.03.2021 demonstrating the alleged status of the plaintiff-appellant as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community. Admittedly, this document did not form part of the record of the courts below nor has any application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 42 CPC by which the provisions of Order 41 have been made applicable to second appeals, been moved before this Court. Therefore, the photostat copy of the document filed as Annexure no.1 cannot be read in the present proceedings. Therefore, argument on non-compliance of Section 157-AA has no force. 7. In so far as the plea of fraud is concerned, both the courts below have dealt with oral and documentary evidence in this regard and this Court does not find any error or perversity in the view taken to the effect that there was a presumption of validity of the registered document. This Court finds that such a view is in consonance with the provisions of Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and though the presumption is rebutable, no cogent evidence was led by the plaintiff-appellant to rebut the said presumption. 8. There is another aspect of this matter. The courts below have discussed the acquisition proceedings initiated by Uttar Pradesh Avas Vikas Parishad in respect of land in dispute. 8. There is another aspect of this matter. The courts below have discussed the acquisition proceedings initiated by Uttar Pradesh Avas Vikas Parishad in respect of land in dispute. The initial notifications were issued in the year 1998 and it appears that the acquisition was either cancelled or held up or stayed in the year 2006 by the State Government, but, later on, in the year 2007, fresh notifications were issued. It is also the admitted case of the plaintiff-appellant that he came to know about the execution of sale deed in the year 2009-10 when the defendants were trying to get the compensation released in their favour. 9. The land in dispute being agricultural in nature, it is necessary to discuss the effect of acquisition in respect of agricultural land as regards the rights of tenure holders are concerned. 10. Section 189 of the Act of 1950 deals with extinction of the interest of a bhumidhar with transferable rights and Section 190 is an identical provision in respect of bhumidhar with nontransferable rights. The said provisions are quoted below:- "189. Extinction of the interest of a bhumidhar with transferable rights.-The interest of a [bhumidhar with transferable rights] in his holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished- (a) when he dies intestate leaving no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (aa) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred or let out in contravention of the provisions of this Act; (b) when the land comprised in the holding has been acquired under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land; or (c) when he has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation. 190 Extinction of the interest of a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights.-(1). 190 Extinction of the interest of a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights.-(1). Subject to the provisions of Section 172, the interest of a [bhumidhar with non-transferable rights] in a holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished- (a) when he dies having no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (b) when the holding has been declared as abandoned in accordance with the provisions of Section 186; (c) when he surrenders his holding or part thereof; (cc) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred, let out or used in contravention of the provisions of this Act; (d) when the land comprised in the holding has been acquired under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land; (e) when he has been ejected in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (f) when he has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation." (emphasis supplied) 11. A bare perusal of Sections 189 (c) and 190(1)(d) of the Act, 1950 shows that when the land comprised in the holding of a bhumidhar with transferable rights or a bhumidhar with non transferable rights has been acquired under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land, the rights of the tenure holder would extinct. 12. In the present case, though the acquisition proceedings were discussed by the courts below and even the plaintiff's case is based upon plea of acquisition, neither Uttar Pradesh Avas Vikas Parishad, which is the Acquiring Body, was arrayed as defendant in the proceedings nor has the appellant been able to establish as to how the land would remain under his title after acquisition. The submission of Sri Tyagi in this regard is that since the authorities for disbursement of compensation are not competent to examine the validity of the registered sale deed, the suit was rightly filed as the civil court only was competent to deal with the plea of fraud etc. 13. This Court is not in a position to accept the said submission for the simple reason that irrespective of execution of sale deed, whether the plaintiff-appellant is the owner or the defendant-respondents, the rights in the agricultural land in dispute vested absolutely in Avas Vikas Parishad after acquisition. 13. This Court is not in a position to accept the said submission for the simple reason that irrespective of execution of sale deed, whether the plaintiff-appellant is the owner or the defendant-respondents, the rights in the agricultural land in dispute vested absolutely in Avas Vikas Parishad after acquisition. Extinction of the interest, either of the plaintiff-appellant or of the defendant-respondents would nullify the entire suit proceedings on this ground alone and, as aforesaid, Uttar Pradesh Avas Vikas Parishad not being party to the litigation though it was a necessary party to the proceedings, the suit would fail for all purposes. The Court may note that prayer No.B in the plaint was in the nature of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from receiving compensation from the office of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad at the strength of sale deed of 2001. Neither the said competent authority nor the acquiring body being party to the proceedings, the suit was bound to fail as per proviso attached to Order 1 Rule 9 CPC. The provision reads as under:- "9. Misjoinder and non-joinder.-No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it: Provided that nothing in this rule shall be apply to non-joinder of a necessary party." (emphasis supplied) 14. In view of the findings recorded by both the courts below dealing with the case of the plaintiff-appellant coupled with the effect of Sections 189 and 190 of the Act, 1950, this Court finds no good ground to entertain this appeal even on admitted facts. 15. No substantial question arises for consideration. 16. The second appeal is dismissed.