Judgment ( 1. ) FEELING aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court reversing judgment of Trial Court and decreeing the suit of plaintiffs, the defendants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100, CPC. ( 2. ) THE plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and injunction in regard to certain agricultural land which is the subject-matter of the suit. ( 3. ) IN brief the suit of plaintiff is that he entered into an agreement with the owner of suit land Surajbali on 27-12-1953 and thereafter on paying Rs. 300/- towards consideration, obtained possession of the disputed land. A document in that regard was also executed by Surajbali in favour of plaintiff. Since the document was not registered, therefore the status of plaintiff became as of a trespasser, but, according to him, by adverse possession, he had acquired Bhumiswami right on the suit land. Since defendants gave threat to dispossess the plaintiff, hence present suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and injunction was filed. ( 4. ) THE defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement ant! has pleaded that plaintiff is illegally possessing the disputed land since 1977. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence dismissed the suit. In appeal the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed and the suit was decreed. Hence this appeal. ( 6. ) ON 15-7-92, this second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the respondent No. 1 had perfected his title by adverse-possession over the suit land ? (ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that "sauda Chithhi" (Ex. P-1), although unregistered could be looked into for proving the alleged continuous possession of the respondent No. 1 over the suit land ever since the date of "sauda Chithhi", when there was no recital in Ex. P-1 about delivery of possession of the suit land to the respondent No. 1. " ( 7. ) I shall now decide these substantial questions of law. Substantial question of law No. 1: ( 8. ) THE plaintiffs in his plaint has specifically averred that the land in question was sold by Surajbali to him and the entire consideration was paid to Suraj Bali. According to plaintiff possession was also delivered to him. " ( 7. ) I shall now decide these substantial questions of law. Substantial question of law No. 1: ( 8. ) THE plaintiffs in his plaint has specifically averred that the land in question was sold by Surajbali to him and the entire consideration was paid to Suraj Bali. According to plaintiff possession was also delivered to him. A "sauda Chithhi" (Ex. P-1) was given to the plaintiff by said Surajbali. Surajbali died in the year 1978. According to the plaintiff, he is possessing that land in question since 27-12-1953 the date when Ex. P-1 was executed, he had also constructed a dwelling house on a part of that land in which the plaintiff and his family members are residing. The plaintiff further pleaded that since Surajbali did not execute the sale deed, his status became as of a trespasser after 3 years from 27-12-1953. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff is possessing the suit property as owner in the knowledge of Surajbali continuously from 1956 and therefore he had acquired right, title and interest by way of adverse possession. Though plaintiff has pleaded about the adverse possession in his plaint, but, there is no cogent evidence that he is possessing the suit property since 1953 and his possession became hostile against the defendant since 1956. There is no document on record to show that he is possessing the property in question since 1953. ( 9. ) IN order to prove that factum of adverse possession, the plaintiff has filed three documents they are: (i) "sauda Chithhi", dated 27-12-1953 (Ex. P-1) (ii) Certified copy of the order dated 21-1-81 passed by Sub-Division Officer Bhainsdehi (Radho v. Mst. Kanshahya Bai and Ors.) which is Ex. P-2 (iii) Khasra Panchsala of years 1979-80 to 1981-82 (Ex. P-3 ). Except these three documents no other document has been filed by the plaintiff. Apart from above said three documents, in order to prove the plea of adverse possession, the plaintiff Radho examined himself and also examined two witnesses, namely, Kolhaji (P. W. 2) and Govind (P. W. 3 ). ( 10. ) SO far as document "sauda Chithhi" (Ex. P-1) is concerned, on going through the said document, since the factum of delivery of possession has not been mentioned in it therefore, it can not be said that by virtue of this document (Ex. ( 10. ) SO far as document "sauda Chithhi" (Ex. P-1) is concerned, on going through the said document, since the factum of delivery of possession has not been mentioned in it therefore, it can not be said that by virtue of this document (Ex. P-1), possession was delivered to the plaintiff and he came into possession of the suit land. ( 11. ) THE other document (Ex. P-2) is an order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer in an appeal filed by plaintiff against the order of Tehsildar dismissing his application filed under Sections 189 and 190 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short the "code") holding that plaintiff did not acquire any Bhumiswami right. This appeal was filed against defendants who are present appellants. On going through the certified copy of the order of SDO, dated 21- 1-1981 (Ex. P-2) nowhere it is gathered that plaintiff is in possession of suit land since 1953 or from any other subsequent years. On going through the said order (Ex. P-2), it is found that application for conferral of Bhumiswami right filed by the plaintiff/respondent before Tehsildar was dismissed by it and the appeal filed by plaintiff was also dismissed by S. D. O. on 21-1-81 vide Ex. P-2. On giving my anxious consideration to this document (Ex. P-2), I could not find, how and in what manner this document is helpful and supports the case of plaintiff. Indeed, if this document is considered in proper perspective, it is revealed that, it does not support the case of plaintiff, but, by this document the case of defendants/appellants, is strengthen. Nowhere in this document the possession of plaintiff was found by Revenue Authorities. On the contrary, it has been held by SDO by this order (Ex. P-2) that occupancy rights were never vested in the plaintiff and therefore conferral of Bhumiswami right to the plaintiff under Section 190 of the Code, does not arise. The appeal of plaintiff was dismissed by S. D. O. On reading the entire order, I could not find that possession of plaintiff was found by the Revenue Authorities. Thus this document (Ex. P-2) also does not prove the possession of plaintiff either from 1953 or from any subsequent years. ( 12. ) THE plaintiff filed Ex. P-3 a Khasra Panchsala of the years 1979 to 1983. Thus this document (Ex. P-2) also does not prove the possession of plaintiff either from 1953 or from any subsequent years. ( 12. ) THE plaintiff filed Ex. P-3 a Khasra Panchsala of the years 1979 to 1983. In column No. 3, the name of defendants are entered as Bhumiswami on the land in question, however, in column number 12 the name of plaintiff/ respondent is entered, on the basis of Ex. P-1 "sauda Chithhia". The plaintiff did not file any khasra of any previous years or of subsequent years. Except for these 3 years (1979 to 1982), there is no document on record in order to establish the possession of plaintiff. If plaintiff was possessing the land in question since 1953, why he did not file the relevant revenue record in that regard. This itself shows that plaintiff was not in possession since 1953. ( 13. ) IF the Khasra Panchsala of the years 1979 to 1982 (Ex. P-2) is considered in its stricto sensue, it is perceivable that it is not a certified copy and is only a true copy signed by the Patwari. Section 76 of the Evidence Act speaks about certified copies of public documents. Under this section entire mode and procedure is prescribed that how and in what manner, a certified copy of a public document can be given. Under this Section, a public officer having custody of public document, which can be inspected by any person as of his right, if makes a demand of copy of it, on payment of legal fees therefor, the same shall be given to it, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of seal, and such copies so certified shall be called as certified copies. Thereafter, Section 77 of the Evidence Act speaks about proof of documents by production of certified copies. According to this section, the certified copies of public documents as delivered under Section 76 of the Evidence Act, may be produced in proof of the contents of the public document which they purport to be copies. Thereafter, Section 77 of the Evidence Act speaks about proof of documents by production of certified copies. According to this section, the certified copies of public documents as delivered under Section 76 of the Evidence Act, may be produced in proof of the contents of the public document which they purport to be copies. Thus the khasra panchsala, which is a public document kept in the custody of public officer, and after obtaining certified copy of it, if it is produced in evidence, the mere production of it would be the proof of the contents of such document. But, if it is not a certified copy given in the manner as prescribed under Section 76 of the Evidence Act, then it is required to be proved like other document. Since Ex. P-2 is not a certified copy of the Khasra Panchsala, but is only a certificate issued by Patwari of the village, the same could be proved only by examining the Patwari, who had issued it. Since, the plaintiff has failed to examine the Patwari to prove Ex. P-2, this document can not be said to be a proved document and unless and until it is proved, it can not be read in evidence. In these circumstances the First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law by relying Ex. P-2, the document which is not proved. ( 14. ) SECTION 79 of the Evidence Act speaks about presumption of genuineness of certified copies. According to this section a Court shall presume the genuineness of the certified copy of every document. But, if the document is not a certified copy, there shall be no such presumption. (See Bhinka v. Charan Singh, AIR 1959 SC 960 ). In this case also the copy of Khatauni given by Patwari under his signature was not found to be a certified copy and no presumption of its genuineness was held by the Apex Court. In the present case also since Khasra (Ex. P-2) has been obtained under the signature of Patwari, it is not a certified copy as given under Section 76 of the Evidence Act, and, therefore, there is no presumption of its genuineness. ( 15. ) THUS, all the three documents filed by plaintiff does not prove his adverse possession. In the present case also since Khasra (Ex. P-2) has been obtained under the signature of Patwari, it is not a certified copy as given under Section 76 of the Evidence Act, and, therefore, there is no presumption of its genuineness. ( 15. ) THUS, all the three documents filed by plaintiff does not prove his adverse possession. In absence of any other documentary evidence, in order to show the possession of plaintiff since 1953, it would be hazardous and highly unsafe to rely the bald statement of plaintiff that he is possessing the land in question since 1953. Merely on the oral testimony of plaintiff his plea of adverse possession can not be accepted and the suit can not be decreed. ( 16. ) ON the basis of aforesaid discussion, the substantial question of law is answered that the Lower Appellate Court was not right in holding that respondent No. 1 had perfected his (wrongly typed her) title by adverse possession over the suit land. The learned First Appellate Court by adopting incorrect approach of law has decreed the suit of plaintiff. Substantial question of Law No. 2 : ( 17. ) SINCE I have already held that plaintiff failed to prove his right by way of adverse possession, there is no necessity to answer substantial question of law No. 2. However, on going through "sauda Chithhi" (Ex. P-1), nowhere it is gathered that possession was delivered to plaintiff by virtue of this document. Since in the recital of Ex. P-1, there is nothing in order to show that possession was ever delivered to plaintiff, therefore, question of continuous possession after the execution of this document does not arise. Substantial question of law No. 2 is thus answered accordingly. ( 18. ) AS the plaintiff has failed to prove adverse possession, his suit, which is based on adverse possession, is hereby dismissed. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1000/- if pre-certified.