B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant No. 1 is the appellant herein who seeks to assail the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 9 of 1988, dated 25. 8. 1992 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad reversing the judgment and decree in O. S. 99 of 1979, dated 26. 9. 1987 on the file of the District munsif at Nizamabad. The respondent No. 1 /the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of his ownership of the suit site shown in blue colour in the plaint sketch and for recovery of possession along with mandatory injunction for demolition of the wall constructed on the suit site by the defendant. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY the case of the respondent no. 1-Plaintiff was that he is the owner and possessor of house bearing No. 4-5-409 situated at Amberpet, Nizamabad. By taking advantage of the plaintiff being out of station at the relevant point of time, defendant No. 1 illegally constructed the wall which is shown in yellow colour in the plaint sketch on the site which belongs to the plaintiff. It was alleged that the entire construction was swiftly done in one day by engaging several masons and labourers. When the plaintiff came back to Nizamabad and asked the defendant No. 1 to remove the said encroachment, defendant No. 1 refused to accede to the request. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit. ( 3 ) CONTESTING the suit claim, the defendants denied the entire claim and it was stated that the suit was filed in collusion with the plaintiff in O. S. No. 64 of 1979 which was pending at the relevant point of time and further that the suit site is part and parcel of the land belonging to the defendant no. l, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 5. 8. 1967 from one buddanna. Therefore, there is absolutely no encroachment. By giving the dimensions of the site, it was pleaded that defendant No. 1 had obtained the permission from defendant no. 2, the Municipality on 17. 2. 1979 and accordingly he made the construction of the wall. Therefore, there are absolutely no merits in the suit claim and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 the Municipality filed a separate Written Statement stating that it has granted permission to defendant no. 2, the Municipality on 17. 2. 1979 and accordingly he made the construction of the wall. Therefore, there are absolutely no merits in the suit claim and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 the Municipality filed a separate Written Statement stating that it has granted permission to defendant no. l on 17. 2. 1979 on the basis of the sale deed produced by him and therefore the defendant No. 2 has nothing to do with the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. On these and other allegations as contained in the pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues: (I) Whether the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit site is shown in the suit map and whether he is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit site from D-1 after evicting D-1 ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction for removing construction on the suit site made by d-1? (iii) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? ( 5 ) DURING the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and his neighbour as P. W. 2 and marked the documents as exs. A-1 to A-3 documents. On behalf of defendant No. 1, the contesting defendant no. 1 was examined as D. W. 1 and his vendor as D. W. 3 whereas, the D. W. 2 is the vendor of D. W. 3. The documents were marked as Exs. B-1 to B-3. Initially, the trial Court on a consideration of the evidence and material on record dismissed the suit holding that there is a variation in regard to the areas claimed in the plaint and sketch filed therewith and also in the statement of P. W. 1. Further, it was observed that the plaintiff did not examine the -executants of Exs. A-1 and A-2, the title deeds relied of the plaintiff nor any attestors or the scribe. ( 6 ) IN appeal, the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the said evidence and material has found that having regard to the nature of the disputed questions between the parties especially as to the encroachment, it is not necessary to examine all the attesting witnesses or the executants of the sale deeds Exs. A-1 and A-2. ( 6 ) IN appeal, the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the said evidence and material has found that having regard to the nature of the disputed questions between the parties especially as to the encroachment, it is not necessary to examine all the attesting witnesses or the executants of the sale deeds Exs. A-1 and A-2. Further, it was held that in fact as per the title deeds of defendant No. l i. e. , Exs. B-1 and B-2, the area shown is far less than the area, which is found in occupation and made the construction of the compound wall. Therefore, it was found that it is the 1st defendant who has made the encroachment and hence allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. ( 7 ) SRI Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein sought to contend that having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove and establish his own title deeds and the extent purchased under Exs. A-1 and A-2 either by examining the attesting witnesses or the vendor, the lower appellate Court ought not to have accepted his version and in the absence of any such proof, no relief could have been given. ( 8 ) SRI P. S. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents sought to repel the said contentions stating that there being no dispute on the title deeds of the plaintiff, it is not necessary to prove the same by producing the attesting witnesses or the executants and further in view of the finding that it is the defendant no. 1 who is in occupation of the more area along with wall than shown in his own documents Exs. B-1 and B-2, which itself amply proves the encroachment made by 1st defendant. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the record, the question which falls for consideration is that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of dispute, the non-examination of the attesting witnesses or the executants in proof of Exs. A-1 to A-3 the title deeds of plaintiff is fatal. ( 10 ) THE main dispute between the parties is in regard to the encroachment made by the 1st defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. A-1 to A-3 the title deeds of plaintiff is fatal. ( 10 ) THE main dispute between the parties is in regard to the encroachment made by the 1st defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant by taking advantage of his absence encroached the site and made the construction of the compound wall after obtaining permission from the municipality. However it is the case of the 1st defendant that the said suit site is forming part of his own property purchased under Exs. B-1 and b-2. In order to substantiate their claim, plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and also the neighbour as P. W. 2. Defendant no. 1 himself examined as P. W. 1 supported by D. Ws. 2 and 3, the predecessors-in-title. Admittedly, no scribe or attesting witness of exs. A-1 and A-2 nor executants of the title deeds are examined, ( 11 ) THE relevant provision applicable for proving a deed is Section 68 of the evidence Act, which reads as follows: 68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested :if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any, document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of, the Indian registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. ( 12 ) UNDER the above provision, the mode of proof of execution of a document which was required to be attested is contemplated which says that if a document is required to be attested and it has to be used in evidence, at least one attesting witness has to be examined. ( 12 ) UNDER the above provision, the mode of proof of execution of a document which was required to be attested is contemplated which says that if a document is required to be attested and it has to be used in evidence, at least one attesting witness has to be examined. However, the proviso there to specifically contemplates that it is not necessary to call any attesting witness in proof of execution of a document not being a will or if it has been registered in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. Thus under the aforesaid provision it is only where the law requires a document to be attested and the execution thereof is denied, necessarily it contemplates for examining the attesting witness and possibly the executant in proof of the same. Thus, the entire process of examining attesting witnesses in aid of the proof of the execution of the document is done-away with unless there is specific denial from other side. In the circumstances, formal proof of the document is sufficient, which stood complied in this case. However, where there is no denial as to the execution of the document, it is not necessary to prove the document by examining any scribe or attesting witness or the executant, more so in respect of the registered document. Admittedly, there is no denial from the appellant s side in regard to the title under Exs. A-1 and A-2 or as to its execution. In view of the same it has to be held that non-examination of the attesting witness or the executant does not affect the plaintiffs claim in any way. The only dispute is, as to whether the defendant had made any encroachment in to the plaintiffs area. Further, having regard to the findings as arrived at by the lower appellate court that the 1st defendant himself is in occupation of the area more than what is covered under Exs. B-1 and B-2, the title deeds under which he claims, it can safely be said that there is a clear encroachment by him, which would suffice to grant relief to the plaintiff, as claimed. B-1 and B-2, the title deeds under which he claims, it can safely be said that there is a clear encroachment by him, which would suffice to grant relief to the plaintiff, as claimed. However, the Trial Court erroneously proceeded to consider the case as if there is title dispute and it requires the proof of the title deeds of either party. There is no other material on record produced by the appellant to explain or justify his possession over the extra area. ( 13 ) IN view of such findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court, this Court in exercise of its powers under section 100, C. P. C. cannot interfere in this second Appeal. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.