JUDGMENT A.L. Vaidya, J.—The suit land is measuring 18 Marlas comprised under khasra No. 193/2 which was a part of khasra No. 193 measuring 5 Kanals 4 Marlas, as described in the plaint. The present respondents preferred a suit for declaration to this effect that they were owners in possession of the entire khasra No. 193 to be specific that of khasra No. 193/2. This khasra No. according to the plaintiffs, was Abadi Tikka and they being proprietor of the Tikka, were in possession of the same and hence its owners. It was pleaded that in Tikka Malankar, there were three caste, namely, Kumhar, Girth and Lohar and all these three communities were having separate Abadies. It was alleged that Abadies of plaintiff and Defendants 3 to 5 were in khasra number 193 and they were all Kumhars by caste and the Abadi of Girth was in khasra No. 159. According to the plaintiffs, Defendants 1 and 2 were threatening to take forcibly possession of the land under khasra number 193/2 and as they were not admitting the claim of the plaintiff, hence suit for permanent prohibitory injunction has been filed and in the alternative possession has been asked for. 2. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit and they took various preliminary objections with respect to the court fee etc. but on merit the plaintiffs possession over the disputed land was denied as has been alleged by them. It was very specifically pleaded that an area of 1 Kanal under khasra No. 193 was in actual possession of Defendants 1 and 2 since their fore-fathers and they claimed themselves to be the owners of the same being proprietor in the village. It was pleaded that plaintiffs were not proprietor of that Tika but of Tika Jarot and as they came to Tika Malankar only four or five years back, hence they had no right to occupy any land. Plaintiffs case that three communities were having separate Abadies in Tika have not been admitted. 3. Parties were put to trial on the following issues by the trial Court: 1. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the disputed property ? OPP 4. 3. Parties were put to trial on the following issues by the trial Court: 1. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the disputed property ? OPP 4. Whether the other Tika Darans are necessary and proper parties ? OPD 5. Whether the site plan is necessary in the suit ? OPD 6. Relief. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove themselves to be the owners of the suit land and therefore suit was dismissed. 4. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, were assailed before the First Appellate Court on various pleas. The First Appellate Court after hearing the parties accepted the appeal, and after setting aside the judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction. 5. The aforesaid judgment and decree have been assailed in the present appeal on various pleas. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also minutely scrutinised the entire record. 7. At the very out set, the learned Counsel for the appellants have pointed out a procedural illegality to have been committed by the trial Court and on account of the same a serious prejudice has been caused to the defendant-appellants and the entire suit with that background was liable to be remanded back for affording an opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence. In order to elucidate the aforesaid submission, it has been contended that the plaintiffs closed their affirmative evidence and after the defendants had closed the evidence, examined some evidence in rebuttal which could not have been allowed to be so examined, as such, evidence could only be examined in the affirmative. It has been further contended that at first instance, the evidence was examined by the plaintiff in rebuttal has to be excluded and in case it is not so to be done, defendants should be afforded an opportunity to rebut that evidence examined by the plaintiffs in rebuttal which otherwise was to be examined in the affirmative. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention the record of the trial Court has to be referred. 8. Issues in the suit were framed on .5-11-1974. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention the record of the trial Court has to be referred. 8. Issues in the suit were framed on .5-11-1974. The onus of Issue Nos.1 to 3 had been placed upon the plaintiffs while that of Issue Nos.4 and 5 have been placed upon the defendants. Plaintiff was to examine evidence in affirmative that is, in support of Issue Nos.1 to 3. On 26-3-1976 plaintiff closed the affirmative evidence and the learned Counsel made a statement to that effect and reserved right of the plaintiffs only to be examined in affirmative and rebuttal after evidence of the defendants. 9. Defendants examined evidence and closed the same on 11-8-1977. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the plaintiffs rebuttal evidence. In rebuttal plaintiffs examined S/Sh. Ranu Ram and Milkhi as PW, 4 and PW 5 and Partap Chand as PW 6. Plaintiffs, as such, closed the evidence on 7-2-1978. 10. Plaintiff appeared as PW 6 and made a statement on oath which dealt with aspects of the evidence to be examined in the affirmative and rebuttal also. 11. PW 4 and PW 5 have been examined to prove the fact that plaintiffs and Defendants 3 to 5 were the owners of the suit land and defendants have no concern over the same. It has been so stated by PW 4 and PW 5 also. 12. The plaintiff when examined, tendered some documents apart from giving oral version of the facts involved in the case. Ex PW 6/1 which is the copy of Akash Shajra pertaining to khasra No. 193/2 and khasra No. 163. Plaintiff in this behalf stated that the Akas portion which was being interfered by the defendants was prepared by him which is Ex. PW 6/1. He also stated that when he got the demarcation, the line in between khasra No. 193/2 and khasra No.163 were removed by the defendants. In this Ex. PW 6/1, suit land has been described as khasra No. 193/2 measuring 18 Marlas. There is no other document which describes the suit land as 193/2 except this Ex. PW 6/1. 13. As referred earlier, the onus of Issue Nos.1 to 3 was placed upon the plaintiffs and under Issue No.3, plaintiffs had to prove their ownership and possession over the suit land, that is, over khasra No.193/2. There is no other document which describes the suit land as 193/2 except this Ex. PW 6/1. 13. As referred earlier, the onus of Issue Nos.1 to 3 was placed upon the plaintiffs and under Issue No.3, plaintiffs had to prove their ownership and possession over the suit land, that is, over khasra No.193/2. Admittedly, this khasra No.193 has been recorded in the ownership and occupation of Abadi Tikka. It is also admitted and otherwise proved on record vide Ex. P-9, copy of Akash Shajra, pertaining to khasra Nos.193 and 163 that khasra No.163 was adjacent to khasra No.193 and that this khasra No 163 was owned and possessed by Defendants 1 and 2 as is evident from the copy of Jamabandi for the year , 968-69 (Ex P-11) on record. In Ex. P-9, there is no demarcation pertaining to khasra No.193/2 and no Tatima to that effect has been prepared as is disclosed in Ex. PW 6/1, referred to earlier. 14. Apart from this Ex. PW 6/1, plaintiff tendered other documents Ex. P-1 to P-12 at the time of rebuttal. 15. There is no doubt that the plaintiff while closing his affirmative evidence, reserved to examine himself in affirmative and in rebuttal after closure of defendants evidence. But the fact remains that apart from examining himself orally after closure of defendants evidence, he tendered certain documents also, more so this Ex. PW 6/1 and Ex. P-9. Admittedly these two documents have been tendered in evidence by the plaintiff in rebuttal, no opportunity had been afforded to the defendants to examine any evidence in rebuttal to these documents. These documents especially Ex PW 6/1 is the most important document through which (suit land) khasra No. 193/2 has been described and identified. It has been the case of the defendants that out of khasra No. 193, they were in occupation of 1 Kanal area. With this defence and otherwise also, it was legally incumbent upon the plaintiffs to have proved that khasra No. 193/2 was not only a part of khasra No. 193 but was measuring 18 Marlas as pleaded by the plaintiffs. As the plaintiffs were claiming ownership over this land under khasra No. 193/2, normally this document was required to be produced in the affirmative and if it was so done, defendants could in rebuttal lead evidence as they desired. As the plaintiffs were claiming ownership over this land under khasra No. 193/2, normally this document was required to be produced in the affirmative and if it was so done, defendants could in rebuttal lead evidence as they desired. Thus, in this background a valuable right of the defendants have been taken away and they have not been afforded an opportunity to rebut the documentary evidence. In a way the fact remains that at first instance any evidence examined in rebuttal which the plaintiffs was to examine in affirmative has to be excluded and in case it is not to be excluded it has to be seen whether any prejudice has been caused to the case or defence of the defendants. Prejudice would be caused only in case this evidence so examined in rebuttal which could be excluded is held to be legally competent evidence. I think this is a case where this document Ex. PW 6/1 has to be excluded and ignored as a piece of evidence in favour of the plaintiffs and if it is so done, there remained no thing for defendants to rebut in so far as this document is concerned. 16. This Ex. PW 6/1 is not the attested copy of Akash Shajra supplied by the revenue authorities, under whose custody the original remains. It is a document prepared by the plaintiff Partap Chand himself. Unless and until it is proved through the document that khasra No. 193/2 was measuring 18 Marlas and its legal Tatima is brought on record, identity of the suit land does not stand legally established. This is a case of that nature. Ex. P-9 is the attested copy of Shajra supplied by the revenue authorities, but this copy will not help the case of the plaintiffs, inasmuch as here only two khasra numbers 193 and 163 has been described and no Tatima regarding khasra No. 193/2 has been described. 17. It is really very strange to note that how this Ex. PW 6/1 was allowed to be tendered in evidence in the statement of private individual who himself has prepared the same. Plaintiff (PW 6) had absolutely—no authority to prepare this document as it was to be a document maintained by the revenue authorities and this document could be proved by a certified copy to have been issued by authorised officer. Khasra No. 193/2 described in Ex. Plaintiff (PW 6) had absolutely—no authority to prepare this document as it was to be a document maintained by the revenue authorities and this document could be proved by a certified copy to have been issued by authorised officer. Khasra No. 193/2 described in Ex. PW 6/1 measuring 18 Marlas has to be ignored. This official document could be proved in accordance with law which procedure has not been selected by the plaintiff for the best reason known to him. In case this document is removed from the evidence examined by the plaintiff there does not remain any legally competent evidence to identify khasra No. 193/2- In the absence of identification of this khasra No. the suit of the plaintiffs as pleaded fails. In this view of the matter so far as this document is concerned as it has been held to be a document not forming legal evidence, defendants would not be prejudiced at all if they have not been afforded opportunity to rebut this document. 18. The oral evidence examined by the plaintiff is of very general nature regarding the possession. That evidence cannot be appreciated in the absence of any legal Tatima prepared pertaining to khasra No. 193/2. 19. Much has been said pertaining to Ex. PW 3/1. which is the demarcation report given by Sh. Shankar Dass, Field Kanungo, dated 3-7-1973. I think this report also does not help the case of the plaintiffs in proving their exclusive possession over khasra No. 193/2 measuring 18 Marlas. PW 3 is Shankar Dass, who prepared this document. He stated that Ex. PW 3/1 is the certified copy of the report given by him in demarcation file No. 80/77 which he had seen. He further stated that he has no personal knowledge regarding the spot. However, he further added that at the time of demarcation, he came to know that on khasra No. 193 community of Ghumar were in occupation He further states so far as he remembered, no other community was residing there. He further added that names which he described, in Ex. PW 3/1 were disclosed to him by the persons referred in report, and they further informed that Kumhar community was residing there. He admitted that at the time of demarcation, he had informed the defendants but further added that in the demarcation file there was no reference to this effect. He further added that names which he described, in Ex. PW 3/1 were disclosed to him by the persons referred in report, and they further informed that Kumhar community was residing there. He admitted that at the time of demarcation, he had informed the defendants but further added that in the demarcation file there was no reference to this effect. He could not state whether any of the defendants was present at the time of demarcation. This demarcation Ex. PW 3/1 given by this witness was pertaining to Khasra No.193 and in this very report he has mentioned that Kumhar community who were the plaintiffs were having their houses over khasra number 193. It is really very strange to note that in case there were houses of the Kumhar community on the suit land or any other portion of Khasra No. 193 it could have been so denoted by this witness by preparing a Tatima at the spot, but this was not so done. Simply his demarcation report to Khasra No. 193 will not ipso facto prove that Khasra No. 193/2 measuring 18 Marlas was in occupation of the plaintiffs. Otherwise, there is nothing in the report as to how and in what manner demarcation was effected. There is nothing on record to prove that this demarcation was given in the presence of the defendants and the defendants had agreed for such demarcation and also agreed for some fixed points on the basis of which demarcation was conducted. This type of the report goes contrary to the instructions issued by the State Government in this behalf covering the procedure to be followed by the revenue authorities. 20. As referred earlier, the other oral evidence pertained to is of general nature whereby plaintiffs witnesses stated that plaintiffs were in occupation of the suit land. They have been describing the entire Khasra No. 193 to be in occupation of the plaintiffs but have not stated specifically pertaining to 18 Marlas of the suit land. PW 1 simply stated that he has seen the suit land which was in occupation of the Kumhar community. He also stated that Girth community was having separate Abadi. PW 2 again gives & general statement that the disputed land was khasra No. 193 and Kumhar community was residing in this khasra number. He further added that Lohar and other communities were having their separate Abadies. He also stated that Girth community was having separate Abadi. PW 2 again gives & general statement that the disputed land was khasra No. 193 and Kumhar community was residing in this khasra number. He further added that Lohar and other communities were having their separate Abadies. He further stated that Khasra No 163 was owned by one Sh. Thakur Dass defendant which was adjoining to Khasra No.193 and on this khasra number defendants created dispute. 21. On the other hand, defendants examined five witnesses who have tried to support the defendants case. 22. The over all picture which emerges out of the circumstances present in this case has been that at first instance kha3ra No. 193/2 measuring 18 Marlas or has been pleaded by the plaintiffs has not been identified through legally competent evidence. Otherwise also, evidence of possession rendered was of very general nature which was pertaining to entire khasra No.193 and no specific evidence regarding Khasra No.193/2 with respect to the possession of the plaintiffs has been examined. Even if it is established that plaintiffs are the proprietor of that very Tika, their case can be favourably considered in case they legally established to be in occupation of Khasra No. 193/2 which onus they have not been able to discharge successfully. It may be referred here that the Learned Presiding Officer of the First Appellate Court visited the spot on 9-2-1982 but a detailed inspection note had not been recorded. Notes, however, are in the file. These notes will not be of much importance to appreciate the evidence examined by the parties and as discussed above. However, both the parties have tried to take advantage from these notes. 23. In view of the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff has miserably failed to legally establish his case and accordingly present appeal is accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court are set aside and as a consequence thereof, suit preferred by the plaintiff-respondents is dismissed with costs. Suit dismissed.