7. It is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that plaintiff was in possession since abolition of zamindari and the land was settled with him, in view of Section 9 of Act no. 1 of 1951. He further contended that earlier in the year 1998, Chandrabhan and Paras, who are relative of the present defendant had also tried to take forcible possession of the land marked as A, B, C and D, and Original Suit no. 136 of 1998, filed by plaintiff was decreed, against which civil appeal was filed which was dismissed on 22.12.2003 and, thereafter, no second appeal was filed. It was in the year 2005 that present defendant started claiming the land on the basis of the sale deed dated 03.02.2005, said to have been executed by one Smt. Kawal Wasi in favour of defendant, copy of which was never filed before the trial court, though, defendant claimed to be in possession over Plot No. 291, measuring 25 kari on the basis of the sale deed. It was before the appellate court that defendant tried to bring the sale deed on record by filing an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. which was rejected by the court below on 30.04.2014, against which no appeal or revision was preferred, thus, lower appellate court could not have relied upon the sale deed and upset the finding recorded by trial court, setting aside the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff. It was next contended that the trial court, rightly relying upon the map of the commission report which was part of the decree dated 22.12.2013 held the land marked as A, B, C and D to be the land of the plaintiff.
