JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. In present case, original respondent 3 has filed 5 suits bearing Suit Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 1954 under Section 175 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Suits were directed against different defendants and in regard to different plots. According to plaintiffs, they were sir-holders of plots whereas defendants were their sub-tenants and they were liable for ejectment. 2. Later on, on 29.9.1956, plaintiffs applied for amendment of pleadings, which was allowed that they were occupancy tenants of land in dispute since it was given to their ancestors as a grant. The defendants of all suits contested that they are not sub-tenants of plaintiffs and have acquired hereditary rights and suits are barred by limitation. They have challenged the plaintiff's title also. In the suit, following 6 issues were framed: “1. Whether defendants is a subtenant of the plaintiff liable to ejectment under Section 175 U.P. Tenancy Act? 2. Whether plaintiff occupancy tenants of the land in suit? 3. Whether the suit is within time? 4. Whether the land in suit is demarcable? 5. Whether Itwari is a necessary party? 6. Should these suits be stayed under Provisions of Section 10 of U.P. Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privilages Act?” 3. Trial Court vide order dated 30.9.1958, dismissed the Suit No. 18 and 21. Suit Nos. 19 and 20 were decreed in part and Suit No. 22 was decreed in its entirety. 4. Trial Court held that plaintiffs were occupancy tenants of all lands involved in five suits. In Plot Nos. 12, 18, 20, 32, 16 and 26 defendants were held as “bila tasnia.” Relevant finding in regard to issue No. 1 is quoted below: “In suit No. 18 plaintiff have sued Ratiram Punni for ejectment from plot No. 20. In 1352F and 1359F Khatauni Ratiram is shown as holding this land bila tasnia is commencing from 1352 F. plaintiff Ujagar Singh stated that Pumi was admitted to this land but Punni name as holding it never appeared in the Khatauni Ratiram has entered the witnesses box and denied this fact. hence I am unable to believe that Ratiram was over admitted as subtenant of plot No. 201 Therefore in respect of Plot No. 20 I hold that Rati Ram is not a subtenant. Issue No. 2 in respect of suit No. 18 is answered in the negative. hence I am unable to believe that Ratiram was over admitted as subtenant of plot No. 201 Therefore in respect of Plot No. 20 I hold that Rati Ram is not a subtenant. Issue No. 2 in respect of suit No. 18 is answered in the negative. In the suit No. 19 plaintiffs have sued Moti, Mauji, Chotey and Itwari in respect of plots 4, 31 ani 32. Out of these plots 4, 31 and 32 are recorded as subtenants at Rs. 46/- rent in 1359 F with 17 years and 12 years duration respectively. Užagar Singh and his witnesses have said that these persons were admitted as subtenants. None of the defendants have entered the witness box to rebut that statement. Hense the oral evidence of plaintiffs coupled with entries in Khatauni proves that defendants are subtenants of plaintiffs in respects of plot 4 and 31. In respect of plot No. 32 defendants are recorded as bila tasfia tenants. Therefore I hold that defendants are not subtenants of plot No. 32. Issue No. 1 in respect of Suit No. 19, in respect of plots 4 and 31 is answered in the affirmative, while in respect of lot No. 32 it is answered in the negative. In suit No. 20 plaintiffs have sued Lachman and Dharamjit and Neku in respect of plots No. 7,9,25,20,10,16, and 26. In Khatauni of 1350 F and 1359 F defendants are recorded as subtenants at Rs. 50/- rent in respect of plots 7,9,25,29 and 10 while in respect of plots 16 and 26 they are recorded as bila tasfia tenants from 1352 F. None of these defendants have entered the witness box to rebut the plaintiffs evidence about contract of subtenancy. Therefore, I hold that defendants are subtenants of plot No. 7, 9, 10,25 and 26 atleast. Because the plots 16 and 26 are entered as bila tasfia am unusual to believe that these plots were let out to defendants consequently. Issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative in respect of plots No. 7,9, and 10,25 and 29 and in the negative in respect of plot 16 and 26. In suit No. 21 Umrao defendant has been suit for ejectment from plots 12 and 18. Umrao is record as bila tasfia tenant from 1352F of both these plots Umrao has also entered the witness box and denied the alleged contract of tenancy. In suit No. 21 Umrao defendant has been suit for ejectment from plots 12 and 18. Umrao is record as bila tasfia tenant from 1352F of both these plots Umrao has also entered the witness box and denied the alleged contract of tenancy. Therefore, I hold that Umrao was never a subtenant of plaintiffs and is cultivating these lands without contract. Hence Issue No. 1 in suit No. 21 is answered in the negative. In suit No. 22 Nathoo, Bhikham and Ratiram S/o Punni have been sued for ejectment from plot No. 3/7/96. This plot is recorded as subtenancy of defendants or their predecessors at Rs. 61/- The duration in 1352F is 15 years and the duration in 1359F is 32 years. None of the defendants except Ratiram has entered the witness box to deny the alleged contract of tenancy. From the entries it appears that the contract originally took place between Punni, Bachoo and Bhikham. Therefore, denial by Ratiram is of little consequences. Ujagar Singh and his witness have said that Risaldar Saheb land admitted the defendant as subtenants. The entries in Khatauni support their version. Therefore, I hold that defendants in suit NO. 22 are subtenants of plaintiffs in respect of plot No. 3. Issue No. 1 in respect of suit No. 22 is answered in the affirmative. It was urged by the learned counsel for plaintiffs that Ex.P1 proves the contract with Umrao Ratiram and others. A perusal of Ex.P1 will show that it does not convey anything. Against the name of Umrao plot No. 16 is noted about which he has not been sued. Similarly in respect of other case too this documents does not help the plaintiffs. For the above reasons Issue No. 1 is answered in the negative in respect of suit Nos. 18 and 21 in toto, in the respect of Suit No. 19 only in respect of plot No. 32 and in respect of suit No. 20 in respect of plots 16 and 26. Issue NO. 2 is answered in the affirmative. In suit No. 22 in respect of plots 4 and 31 in suit No. 19 in respect of plots 9,7,10,25 and 29 in Suit No. 20.” 5. Issue NO. 2 is answered in the affirmative. In suit No. 22 in respect of plots 4 and 31 in suit No. 19 in respect of plots 9,7,10,25 and 29 in Suit No. 20.” 5. Both plaintiffs and defendants were aggrieved by aforesaid orders and, therefore, 7 appeals were filed, which were decided vide judgment and order dated 6.6.1973 and all suits were dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on a ground that as the disputed land was a Nazul land and since it was a land given on grant under Crown Grants Act, 1895 (later on known as “Government Grants Act, 1950”), therefore, provisions of said Act would be applicable and according to provisions of Section 2 and 3 as Amended of it, on such land neither provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 nor Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 would be applicable. Relevant part thereof is quoted below: 6. In aforesaid circumstances, plaintiffs filed 5 Second Appeals before Board of Revenue which was allowed vide impugned order dated 29.3.1982. Relevant part thereof are quoted below: “12. It is thus clear that although the provisions of Agra Tenancy Act or the U.P. Tenancy Act are not applicable for invalidating the grant but the other provisions of these Acts are applicable. The grant being of occupancy rights, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit for ejectment are maintainable. The lower appellate Court wrongly applied the law without considering the provisions of Section 2 of U.P. Act XIII of 1960. It is, therefore, held that all the suits are maintainable. 13. It is true as held in More a more Basselious Cathelious and another v. Most Dev. Har Poulose Athenesine and others, AIR 1964 SC 536 and Braham Nand Puri v. Neki Puri, AIR 1965 SC 1506 , that in ejectment suits the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and has to discharge the onus which is on him irreparastive of whether the defendant has proved his case or not. In the present case the plaintiff have discharged the onus placed on them and have proved satisfactorily that they are occupancy tenants of all the disputed land are holding over and the terms of the lease granting occupancy tenancy rights on their ancestral substitute and of the defendants are proved to be sub tenants they are liable to be ejectment from the disputed land. 14. 14. No sirdari rights can acquire to the defendant as the U.P.Z.A and L.R Act is not applcable and no heredity rights can accure to them as the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act cannot be applied for invalidating the grant. The entry of 1359 F. showing Ratiram as Bila Tasfia on plot No. 20 who appeared as a witness as D.W. 2 is certainly a sub-tenants of the plaintiff because Para 134 of the U.P. Land Records Manual Lays down that occupancy tenants of Government estates are to be recorded in class (C) and persons recorded in class (20) as Bila Tasfia are not trespasser but they are sub-tenants who have entered into contract of sub-tenancy but the rent has not been settled. Reference can be made Mahadeo Pandey v. Suraj Bhan Singh, 1964 RD 253 (HC). It has been held in Bhagwan Bux Singh and others v. Ganesh Bux Singh Retu and others, 1237 RD 572, as follows: “The entry in the village records of the defendants as bila tasfia tenants is inconsistent with their possession being adverse. The more fact that the defendants have been in possession for a long time or that they had not paid any rent for the land cannot established title by adverse possession.” Therefore, in view of the above as the bila tasfia entries of Ratiram defendant in suit No. 18 was wrongly construed to be entry of a trespasser instead of construing it to be necessary of sub-tenancy in which rent has been settled and rent receipts etc. P-2, P-5, and P-9 were also not considered. Therefore, the suit ought to have been decreed against defendant Rati Ram. So is the case with suit No. 20 the bila tasfia entries of 8 years standing in 1359Fasli D.W.1 Umrao only having been examined who should not have been believed against the paper entries. Suit No. 21 also ought to have been decreed and accordingly bila tasfia entry of 8 years regarding plot Nos. So is the case with suit No. 20 the bila tasfia entries of 8 years standing in 1359Fasli D.W.1 Umrao only having been examined who should not have been believed against the paper entries. Suit No. 21 also ought to have been decreed and accordingly bila tasfia entry of 8 years regarding plot Nos. 1, 6 and 26 of suit No. 20 also ought to have been decreed because they are entries of sub-tenants and only rents were not settled and the entry on plot No. 17 of suit No. 19 against defendant not etc for plot No. 32 who did not appear in the witness box and receipt ext P-6 and P-9 were proved the suit for this plot also ought to have been decreed. In suit No. 20 defendants did not appear in the witness box and Shikmi entries of plot Nos. 1,6 and 26 should have been believed and the suit for them also ought to have been decreed. It is settled principle that persons having special knowledge should appear being material witness. If they failed to appear adver inference should be drawn against them. Reliance can be placed on Har Mandir Pathak v. Sankatha Singh, 1966 ALJ 904, Rajmal Man Narain v. Budan Saheb Abdullah Saheb, AIR 1922 Bombay 81 and Shah Mohammad Khan v. Ahmad Ali Khan, AIR 1937 Oudh 170 . Jaitu and Genda Lal supported the plaintiff's case and the suits against them were decreed. The statement of Umrao defendant in suit No. 21 had been ovassive. He stated that Bhawani had been cultivating after his death he cultivated it vaise hec which shows as evasiveness. Thus, there is no preponderance of evidence of subtenancy of defendants to be sub-tenants of the plaintiff. Rent receipts Ex. P-10 11 and P-12 prove in the names of Punni Bacchu Bikhu, respectively proves the plaintiffs case against defendant of suit No. 22 and suit against them was rightly decreed. Thus, there is no preponderance of evidence of subtenancy of defendants to be sub-tenants of the plaintiff. Rent receipts Ex. P-10 11 and P-12 prove in the names of Punni Bacchu Bikhu, respectively proves the plaintiffs case against defendant of suit No. 22 and suit against them was rightly decreed. It is, therefore, clear that the plaintiffs have proved their case to be hilt that the defendants are their sub-tenants and they are libale to be ejected from the disputed plots and all the suits of the plaintiffs are liable to be decreed and the judgments and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are liable to be set aside and the judgments and decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be confirmed regarding suits of plots in the suits which were decreed and are liable to be set aside regarding the suits or the plots in the suits which were dismissed and all the suits are liable to be decreed with costs althrough. 15. In view of the above, all the 5 appeals are allowed and the judgments and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside and the judgments and decree passed by the trial Court regarding the suits and the plots for which the suits were decreed are confirmed and the judgments and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suits or dismissing the suits regarding from plots in them are set aside and the suits for the plots in these suits also the plaintiffs suits stand decree i.e. all the 5 suits are decreed with costs for ejectment of all the defendants from all the disputed plots.” 7. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri assisted by S/Sri S.K. Verma, Vineet Kumar Singh, S.K. Singh and Brijesh Kumar Shukla, Advocates for petitioners has submitted that trial Court has not considered the effect of amendment i.e. land in dispute was admittedly to be a land given as a Grant, therefore, provisions of Crown Grants Act (later on known as Government Grants Act) would alone be applicable. However, during suit, effect of it were not considered. 8. However, during suit, effect of it were not considered. 8. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that during First Appeal which is in continuation of suit, aforesaid issue was raised and therefore, issue of maintainability was considered and therefore in view of Amended Section of Government Grants Act wherein it was provided that provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 would not be applicable, therefore, claim of plaintiffs that they are 'sir holders' and defendants were sub-tenants was rightly rejected. Rights could be settled only on basis of recital of the Grant. 9. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the Second Appellate Court has passed an order of reversal, however, provisions of Section 100 of CPC either before Amendment or after it were not considered i.e. neither substantial questions of law were framed nor a finding was returned that decision was contrary to law or failed to determine some material issue of law or there was any substantial error or defect in procedure prescribed by the Code. 10. Learned Senior Advocate has further referred findings returned by the Board of Revenue in the Second Appeal that “8. Lower Appellate Court wrongly construed the Grant to ancestors of plaintiffs to be invalid for want of a compliance of Section 16(5) of Agra Tenancy Act and also that of provisions of Section 18 of that Act were not complied with.” and submitted that First Appellate Court has not held Grant to ancestors of plaintiffs to be invalid rather First Appellate Court has held that since it was a grant under Crown Grants Act (Government Grants Act), therefore, right on land in dispute will be decided in terms of provisions of said Act and as referred above, Section 2 and 3 (as amended) of said Act specifically provides that provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 would not be applicable, therefore, claim on basis of said Act as raised by the plaintiffs was rejected and suit was held to be not maintainable, therefore, above referred findings were absolutely perverse. 11. 11. Learned Senior Advocate has further referred that Board of Revenue in paragraph 12 of impugned order has held that provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 or Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 would not be applicable for invalidating Grant but other provisions of these Acts are applicable and that grants being of occupancy right, plaintiffs are entitled to file a suit for ejectment. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that aforesaid findings are not only self-contrary but against the provisions of Sections 2 and 3, as amended, of Government Grants (UP Amendment) Act, 1960 which specifically provides that entire U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 or Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 would not be applicable. 12. None appeared on behalf of contesting respondents, therefore, I have perused the counter-affidavit filed by one of respondents. So far as non-maintainability of suit is concerned, reply of respondents is quoted below: “10. That the contents of paragraph 13 of the petition are incorrect. (a) The suits were maintainable. The suits were in accordance with the Government Grants Act. In fact the defence that the defendants acquired rights under Section 180(2) of U.P. Tenancy Act ran counter to it and was hit, if at all, by the provisions of Government Grants Act, 1860 as amended in Uttar Pradesh. (b) further the question of maintainability on the ground that the Government Grants as amended in Uttar Pradesh was not at all raised in the written statements and hence it could not be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. The learned Additional Commissioner acted under a misconception of law. The defendants had full opportunity to contest the suit and the plaint could not be rejected at the appellate stage. The suits filed by the plaintiffs-respondents were maintainable in law. 11. That the contents of Para 14 of the petition are incorrect. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents was consistent from the very beginning and they claimed occupancy rights in their favour which accrued to them under law on the basis of the grant made in their favour by the Government. In the Court of Assistant collector, First Class, defendants did not raise any plea against the maintainability of the suits and as such there was no question of denying that the land in dispute is nazul land. This question was raised for the first time before the learned Additional Commissioner as stated earlier. In the Court of Assistant collector, First Class, defendants did not raise any plea against the maintainability of the suits and as such there was no question of denying that the land in dispute is nazul land. This question was raised for the first time before the learned Additional Commissioner as stated earlier. The allegations made are against the material on record. The correct position can be ascertained from the judgments of the Court below. 12. That the contents of Para 15 of the petition are innocent and misconceived. The provisions of Section 16, 17 and 18 of Agra Tenancy Act 1926 and the restrictions contained therein were not applicable in view of Section 2 of Government Grants Act as amended and applicable in Uttar Pradesh. The registration of the instrument was not at all necessary and the Government could grant occupancy rights irrespective of the alleged restrictions contained in Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. Such rights could be granted even on nazul land. The learned Additional Commissioner acted under a misconception of law. The view taken by respondent-1 is correct and do not suffer from any error of law. The suits filed under Section 175 of U.P. Tenancy Act were legally maintainable in law.” 13. Heard learned Senior Advocate for petitioners and perused the record. 14. It is well-settled that there is 'no estoppel against law' (See Krishna Rai (dead) through LRs v. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and others, (2022) 8 SCC 715). If a suit is barred by provisions of any law i.e. issue of maintainability could be considered at any stage. In present case, issue of maintainability was not considered by the trial Court, however, this issue was specifically raised and considered by First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, after due consideration of the provisions of Government Grants Act, held that suit filed by plaintiffs will be barred since their right was based on U.P. Tenancy Act, 1936 which would not be applicable in terms of Amended Section 2 of Government Grants Act. Relevant Sections are mentioned herein-below: “8. After the Government Grants (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1960 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1960) Section 2 of the Government Grants Act, 1995 stands as follows: “2. Amendment of Sections 2 and 3 of the Act IV of 1898: For Sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act 1895, (hereinafter called the Principle Act). Relevant Sections are mentioned herein-below: “8. After the Government Grants (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1960 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1960) Section 2 of the Government Grants Act, 1995 stands as follows: “2. Amendment of Sections 2 and 3 of the Act IV of 1898: For Sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act 1895, (hereinafter called the Principle Act). The following shall be substituted, and be deemed always to have been substituted: 2. (1) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not to apply to Government Grants - Nothing contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall apply or deemed over to have applied to any grant or other transfer of land or of any interest therein, heretofore made or hereafter to be made, by or on behalf of the Government to or in favour of any person whomsoever: and every such grant and transfer shall be constructed and take effect as if the said Act had not been passed. (2) U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, and Agra Tenancy Act, 1928, not to effect certain reasons made by or on behalf of the Government - nothing contained in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 or the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, shall affect, or deem to have ever affected any rights, created, conferred or granted, whether before or after the date of the passing of the Government Grant (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1960, by leases of land by or on behalf of, Government in favour of any person: and every such creation, confirment or grant shall be constructed and take effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, or the Agra Tenancy Act, 1929. (3) Certain leases made by or on behalf of the Government to take effect according to their tenant - All provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations contained any such creation, confirment or grant referred to in Section 2, shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor; any decree or direction of a Court of law or any rule of law, statute or enactment of the legislature, to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent, or be deemed over to have prevented the effect of any enactment relating to the acquisition of property, Land Reforms or the imposition of ceiling on agriculture land. This sub-section 2 lays down that every such creation confirment or grant shall be constructed and take effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary, contained in U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, or Agra Tenancy Act, 1929. The implements that even if the grant is to the contravention of the provision of the U.P. Tenancy Act or the Agra Tenancy Act, the creation, the confirment or grant shall not be constructed to be invalid on such ground. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court wrongly constructed the grant to the ancestor of the plaintiffs to be invalid for want of a compliance of Section 16 (5) of Agra Tenancy Act and also that provisions of Section 18 of that Act were not complied with. In view of Section 2 as amended by U.P. Act XIII of 1907 any provisions of any law except provided by that section are not to be constructed for invalidating the grant. Therefore, in not setting the grant register the grant cannot be invalidated and the provisions of Section 18 of Agra Tenancy Act for creation of occupancy right when if not complied with cannot debar confirment of occupancy right by the State on the ancestor of the plaintiffs. Therefore, lower Appellate Court committed illegality in deciding otherwise.” 15. It is being admitted position that land in dispute was given on Grant to ancestors of plaintiffs, therefore, any right would be accrued only in terms of recital of Grant as well as in terms of Crown Grants Act (later on known as Government Grants Act). 16. First Appellate Court has rightly considered the relevant provisions and held that since provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 would not be applicable to land in dispute, therefore, all suits were dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 17. Board of Revenue in Second Appeal has accepted that land in dispute was a land given under Grant and as such in view of provisions of Crown Grants Act (later on known as Government Grants Act) and provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 would not be applicable, however, despite above observations, Board of Revenue has erred in further observing that other provisions of both Tenancy Acts would be applicable without any specific ground. Said observation is self contrary, which render impugned order illegal. 18. Said observation is self contrary, which render impugned order illegal. 18. If the provisions of both Tenancy Acts are not applicable, the Second Appellate Court has wrongly held that some part of it is still applicable, despite there was no such differentiation in amended provisions of the Government Grants (UP Amendment) Act, 1960 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1960) as well as no basis was recorded by the Board of Revenue. 19. In aforesaid circumstances, the findings returned by Board of Revenue are perverse, contrary to law as well as are self-contrary. 20. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside, and, therefore, keeping in view that interim order remained in currency, therefore, its legal consequence shall follow.