JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. 1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been preferred by the plaintiff arises out of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. Facts leading to filing of the instant appeal, briefly stated, are that Special Area Development Authority, Harda developed plots in Nehru Colony, Harda and framed a scheme for construction of residential houses under hire - purchase scheme. For allotment of residential houses applications were invited pursuant to which, plaintiff submitted an application on 11.3.1986. By communication dated 08.04.1988 the plaintiff was informed that residential house shall be allotted to him under the scheme. On 09.08.1989 as well as 04.11.1989 notices were sent to the plaintiff to deposit installments on account of cost of the house, the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. By notice dated 06.10.1990 the plaintiff was asked to show cause as to why allotment made in his favour be not cancelled as his wife owns land admeasuring 0.014 acres in Village Kulharda. After considering the reply submitted by the plaintiff the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled vide order dated 22.4.1991. 3. In the circumstances aforesaid the plaintiff instituted a suit seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The claim in the suit was, inter alia, based on the ground that till 1989 on the land owned by the plaintiff's wife no house was constructed. A small house was constructed temporarily in the year 1990 which is situated at a distance of 3 Kms. from Harda township. For the period 1986 to 1990 there was no house in the mane of wife of the plaintiff. Accordingly a declaration was sought that plaintiff is entitled to allotment of residential house under the Hire Purchase Scheme and writ of permanent injunction was claimed restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest in respect of the house in question. 4. Defendant filed written statement in which claim of the plaintiff was disputed. It was, inter alia, pointed out that under the terms and conditions of allotment, essential condition of eligibility of allotment was that prospective allottee should not have any other house either in his name or in the name of his wife or minor child in the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, plaintiff submitted a false declaration and the affidavits and got the house allotted under the scheme. However, plaintiff submitted a false declaration and the affidavits and got the house allotted under the scheme. As soon as the defendant learnt that plaintiff's wife owned a land admeasuring 0.014 acres and has constructed a house thereon, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff and after considering the reply of the plaintiff the allotment was cancelled. It was further pleaded that the land situate at village Kulharda falls within the limits of Municipal Council, Harda. 5. Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.4:1994 decreed the claim of the plaintiff. Trial Court, inter alia, held that under the terms and conditions of the allotment of house under the scheme, Exhibit-P-3, the prospective allottee was eligible for allotment of the house if the house is in dilapidated condition or is situate in a distant rural area. Trial Court while taking into account the statement of the plaintiff, who was examined as PW.1, and the certificate dated 05.2.1992, Exhibit - P-4 issued by Revenue Inspector held that the house on the plot owned by plaintiff's wife was constructed in the year 1990. No evidence in rebuttal was adduced on behalf of the defendant to show that prior to allotment of the house under the scheme, house on the land owned by the plaintiff's wife was constructed. Trial Court relied on Exhibit - P - 2 i.e., certificate issued by the Officer of the Special Area Development Authority and held that house owned by the plaintiff's wife was situate beyond the limits of Special Area Development Authority and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to allotment of the house under the Scheme. Accordingly, the claim of the plaintiff was decreed. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree respondent-defendant preferred an appeal. Lower appellate Court, inter alia, held that the plaintiff's wife owned land inside the municipal limits of Harda and in view of the terms and conditions of the allotment as contained in Exhibit P-3 the plaintiff was not eligible for allotment of house under the scheme. Lower appellate court also discarded Exhibit P - 4 dated 05.2.1992 i.e., certificate issued by Revenue Inspector on the ground that the aforesaid Revenue Inspector was not cross - examined to prove the contents of the document. It was held that allotment of house made in favour of the plaintiff under the scheme was rightly cancelled. Lower appellate court also discarded Exhibit P - 4 dated 05.2.1992 i.e., certificate issued by Revenue Inspector on the ground that the aforesaid Revenue Inspector was not cross - examined to prove the contents of the document. It was held that allotment of house made in favour of the plaintiff under the scheme was rightly cancelled. Accordingly, the decree passed by the Trial Court was reversed and plaintiff's claim was dismissed. 7. This Court while admitted the appeal vide order dated 17.1.2000 framed following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the lower appellate court was right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court merely on the ground that the wife of the appellant had purchased open land on 25.3.1982 as per Ex P -1 ? (ii) Whether the Court below was right in holding that the conditions, under which the suit house to be allotted to the appellant, were breached by him in not disclosing to the respondent that his wife had open piece of land at village Kull(sic)rda? (iii) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the Ex - P4 could not be considered in evidence despite the fact that it was exhibited without any objection on the part of the respondent and was made a part of record of the trial court? (iv) Whether the appellant was required to file any objection in respect of the suit land purchased by his wife when there was no house standing upon it for the purpose of disclosing it to the respondent that she is in possession of open piece of land under the conditions mentioned in Ex P- C? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that burden to prove that house constructed on the land owned by plaintiff's wife at the time when the allotment of house was made in favour of the plaintiff was on the defendants. However, defendants have failed to discharge the burden. It was further submitted that lower appellate Court grossly erred in discarding the document - Exhibit - P- 4 and in holding that same has not been proved. Learned counsel in support of her submission has placed reliance on R.VE. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and another, (2003) 8 SCC 752 . 9. It was further submitted that lower appellate Court grossly erred in discarding the document - Exhibit - P- 4 and in holding that same has not been proved. Learned counsel in support of her submission has placed reliance on R.VE. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and another, (2003) 8 SCC 752 . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is just and proper. Lower appellate court rightly held that document Exhibit P - 4 has not been duly proved. In support of her contention learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in Dharmarajan and others Vs. Valliammal and others (2008) 2 SCC 741 . 10. I have considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Scope of interference with a finding of fact under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is well defined. This court can interfere with finding of the fact in case of misreading of evidence or where finding is perverse. [See: Rohini Prasad and others vs. Kasturchand and another, (2003) 3 SCC 668 and Ramlal and another vs. Phagua and others, AIR 2005 SCW 6348 ]. Admittedly, the Special Area Development Authority formulated a scheme for construction of house in Nehru colony, Harda. The houses which were to be constructed in the aforesaid colony were to be allotted under the terms and conditions contained in Exhibit-P-3 on hire-purchase basis. One of the essential condition of eligibility as contained in Exhibit-P-3 was that prospective allottee should not have any house either in his name or in the name of his wife or minor child. However, the aforesaid requirement was relaxed in a case where the house is in dilapidated condition or situate in remote rural area. Clause 15 of the aforesaid terms and conditions provided that an applicant under the scheme should satisfy himself that the information furnished by him in the application as well as in the affidavit is correct. In case, it is found that information furnished by the applicant is incorrect, the allotment shall be liable to be cancelled. 11. Plaintiff who has been examined as PW-1 in his deposition has stated that in year 1990 house was constructed on the land belonging to his wife. In case, it is found that information furnished by the applicant is incorrect, the allotment shall be liable to be cancelled. 11. Plaintiff who has been examined as PW-1 in his deposition has stated that in year 1990 house was constructed on the land belonging to his wife. The plaintiff has procured the certificate dated 05.2.1992 Exhibit-P -4 issued by the Revenue Inspector. From the perusal of paragraph 4 of deposition of the plaintiff it is clear that objection with regard to document was taken on behalf of the defendant. However, trial Court deferred the decision on the objection till the time of decision of the suit. However, from perusal of statement of PW1 it is clear that no challenge has been made to his testimony with regard to construction of the house in the year 1990 in the cross -examination on behalf of the defendants. Perusal of Exhibit -P - 2 i.e., 'Certificate of No Objection' issued by Chief Executive Officer, Speical Area Development Authority reveals that lands bearing khasra nos. 3, 4 & 5 are not situate in the limits of Special Area Development Authority, Harda. Sale - deed Ex. P -1, shows that registered sale - deed dated 25.3.1982 plaintiff's wife had purchased land admeasuring 0.014 acres comprised in khasra nos. 4 & 5 of village Kulharda. 12. The eligibility for allotment has to be seen at the time when the scheme was framed. Admittedly, a letter of allotment was issued to the plaintiff on 08.4.1988. At that point of time the house constructed on the land belonging to plaintiff's wife was situate outside the limits of Special Area Development Authority. The plaintiff in paragraph 4 of his deposition has stated that said house was constructed in year 1990. No challenge has been made to the testimony of the plaintiff with regard to the construction of the house in the year 1990 in the cross - examination on behalf of the defendants. It is well settled in law that if testimony of witness is not challenged in cross examination on a particular point, the same has to be accepted. [See Punjabrao v. Dr. D P Meshram and others, AIR 1965 SC 1179 , Kishore singh vs. Bhanwarlal, 1966 MPLJ 690]. It is well settled in law that if testimony of witness is not challenged in cross examination on a particular point, the same has to be accepted. [See Punjabrao v. Dr. D P Meshram and others, AIR 1965 SC 1179 , Kishore singh vs. Bhanwarlal, 1966 MPLJ 690]. Thus, it is apparent that house on the land belonging to plaintiff's wife was constructed in the year 1990 whereas the allotment was made in favour of the plaintiff under the scheme in the year 1988. At the time allotment was made the plaintiff did not have any house either in his name or in the name of his wife or his minor child. Lower Appellate Court has rightly discarded the document Exhibit P- 4 as it is trite law that marking of Exhibit of a document and its proof are two different things. [See Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others vs. Yelamatri - Satyam and others, AIR 1971 SC 1865 and Gwalior Ceramic and Potteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karamchand Thapar and Bros. Coal Sales Ltd. Gwalior, 1996 MPLJ 772 ]. 13. It has been pleaded in the written statement that allotment of the house in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled on the ground that plaintiff had furnished incorrect information that neither he nor his wife nor his minor child owned any house in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The aforesaid affidavits have been filed as Exhibits - D - 4 and D -5. The aforesaid affidavits have been sworn on 19.7.1989 and 13.4.1986 i.e. prior to construction of the house on the land belonging to the plaintiff's wife. Thus it cannot be said that plaintiff had furnished any incorrect information. Apart from this, the allotment of the house made in favour of the plaintiff has been cancelled by the defendant vide order dated 22.4.1991, Exhibit-P-14 on the ground that plaintiff's wife owns a house which is situated adjacent to limits of Special Area Development Authority. From perusal of statement of DW1 Jagdish Prasad, it is apparent that by notification dated 24.11.1988 the limits of Special Area Development Authority, Harda were extended. Copy of the notification has been annexed as Exhibit D - 2/C. A map was prepared on the basis of Exhibit D -2 which reveals that house situate on the land belonging to plaintiff's wife is within the limits of Special Area Development Authority, Harda. Copy of the notification has been annexed as Exhibit D - 2/C. A map was prepared on the basis of Exhibit D -2 which reveals that house situate on the land belonging to plaintiff's wife is within the limits of Special Area Development Authority, Harda. Thus, the limits of Special Area Development Authority have been extended subsequent to the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff i.e., on 08.4.1988. Thus in view of the fact that house on the plot owned by plaintiff's wife was constructed in the year 1999 and in view of the fact that house situate on the land belonging to plaintiff's wife at the time of allotment was situated outside the limits of the Special Area Development Authority, it cannot be said that either plaintiff had furnished any incorrect information in his affidavit or he was ineligible for allotment of the house under the scheme. Thus, findings recorded by lower appellate Court that plaintiff was not eligible under the scheme for allotment of house and that he had furnished incorrect information are based on misreading of evidence and cannot be sustained. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, first substantial question of law framed by this Court has to be answered in negative. The second substantial question of law also has to be answered in negative. The plaintiff is entitled under the scheme for allotment of house. However, condition with regard to eligibility of allotment under the scheme has not been breached by him in any manner. The third substantial question of law has to be answered in affirmative and it is held that lower appellate court was right in holding that Exhibit P - 4 cannot be considered in evidence. Similarly, fourth substantial question of law has to be answered in affirmative by holding that plaintiff was not required to file any objection in respect of the land purchased by his wife when there was no house standing upon it for the purpose of disclosing it to the respondent that she is in possession of open piece of land. 15. Accordingly, the second appeal succeeds. Judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored. The plaintiff's claim is decreed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.