JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed at the instance of Defendant who had lost from both the Courts below since the suit of Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 has been decreed by learned trial Court and the judgment and decree has been affirmed in appeal. 2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for disposal of this appeal, suffice it to say that a suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right on the basis of adverse possession and accordingly the correction of revenue record has been filed by the Plaintiff in respect of suit property, the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint. 3. According to the Plaintiff, he is in possession of the suit property w.e.f. June, 1972 in the knowledge of Defendant as Bhumiswami for a continuous period of 12 years and therefore on 15-6-1984, he had acquired Bhumiswami right by way of adverse possession and accordingly he is entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue record. 4. The averments made in the plaint have been denied by the Defendant/Appellant by filing a written statement and it has been specifically pleaded in para 3 of written statement that Plaintiff is not possessing the suit property w.e.f. June, 1972 in the knowledge of Defendant without interruption for a continuous period of 12 years. This has also been denied that Plaintiff has acquired Bhumiswami right by way of adverse possession. In para 5 of written statement it has been pleaded that Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, but, the Defendant is possessing the same in his Bhumiswami right. 5. Learned trial Court framed specific issue in respect of conferral of Bhumiswami right by adverse possession and after recording evidence of parties found that the Plaintiff has perfected his Bhumiswami title by way of adverse possession. 6. The appeal which was filed by Defendant/Appellant has been dismissed by the impugned judgment by learned First Appellate Court. 7. In this manner this Second Appeal has been filed by the Defendant in this Court. 8. On 13-9-2001 this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts pleaded and the evidence on record, Courts below are justified in holding that the Plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession? 7. In this manner this Second Appeal has been filed by the Defendant in this Court. 8. On 13-9-2001 this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts pleaded and the evidence on record, Courts below are justified in holding that the Plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession? (2) Whether on the admission of the Plaintiff that the lease was in the name of Defendant Daulat Singh and name of Daulat Singh is recorded as Bhumiswami, suit for title of Plaintiff could be decreed? 9. The contention of learned Counsel for Appellant Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra is that although the factum of adverse possession has been pleaded in the plaint which has been denied by the Defendant in the written statement, but, it has not at all been proved by the Plaintiff. Learned Counsel further submits that the Plaintiff has not filed certified copies of the Khasras (revenue record) in order to prove his plea of adverse possession. 10. On the other hand, Shri Agrawal learned Counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent argued in support of impugned judgment and has submitted that the Plaintiff has filed copy of Khasra of the year 1993-94 to 1994-95 Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/4 respectively and hence the plea of adverse possession has been duly proved. Learned Counsel further submits that Plaintiff examined the witnesses of the village where the land in question is situated and they have proved the factum of possession of the Plaintiff for last 12 years and hence by oral evidence also, plea of adverse possession has been proved. 11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed and suit is liable to be dismissed. 12. Regarding substantial question of law No. 1: On bare perusal of plaint para 3, this Court finds that there is specific and well-founded plea of adverse possession in the plaint. The Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that without interruption of 12 years in the knowledge of Defendant, he is possessing the disputed property as Bhumiswami. This plea of adverse possession has been specifically denied by the Defendant in para 3 of his written statement. An issue was also struck in this regard. The Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that without interruption of 12 years in the knowledge of Defendant, he is possessing the disputed property as Bhumiswami. This plea of adverse possession has been specifically denied by the Defendant in para 3 of his written statement. An issue was also struck in this regard. Since the burden of proof was on Plaintiff to prove the factum of adverse possession it was incumbent upon him to file the certified copies of the Khasra in order to demonstrate his possession. I do not find any merit in the contention of Shri Agrawal learned Counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff that by Ex.P/2 and P/4 which are the copies of the Khasra, the possession of the Plaintiff is proved from June 1972 to 15-6-1984. Firstly these copies (Ex.P/2 and P/4) are not the certified copies and virtually they are the documents signed by Patwari. Section 74 of Evidence Act speaks about public documents and Section 76 is in respect of certified copies of public documents. According to Section 76, every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of legal fees therefor, 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, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorised by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Needless to say the Khasra is a part of revenue record and is a public document. But Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/4 are not the certified copies as they do not fulfil the requirement of Section 76. Section 77 of Evidence Act speaks proof of public document by production of certified copies and according to this section no formal proof is required and only production of certified copies of public document would be sufficient to prove the contents of public documents. Hence, according to me, the documents (Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/4) which are only signed by Patwari are not the certified copies of the public documents, but, are the certificates given by the Patwari which can be proved by examining the Patwari. Hence, according to me, the documents (Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/4) which are only signed by Patwari are not the certified copies of the public documents, but, are the certificates given by the Patwari which can be proved by examining the Patwari. In this context I may profitably place reliance Bhinka and Ors. v. Charan Singh : AIR 1959 SC 960 para 7 and it will be profitable to quote the relevant portion which reads thus: To put it differently, if a certified copy was executed substantially in the form and in the manner provided by law, the Court raises a rebuttable presumption in regard to its genuineness. The khatauni of 1355 fasli with which we are concerned, gives the relevant details and purports to have been signed by Ahmed Ali, the patwari of the village. It cannot be disputed that the patwari was an officer appointed by the State Government and that he was authorized to issue certified copies of the record of rights. The U.P. Land Records Manual gives the rules prescribing the form and the manner in which a certified copy of the record of rights should be issued. Paragraph 26 of the Manual confers upon him the power to give to the applicants certified copies from his record; and under Clause (d) of the said paragraph he should enter in his diary a note of such extracts. He should also note the amount of fee realised by him in the diary as well as on the extract. In this case neither the diary was produced to prove that the procedure prescribed was followed nor the extract to disclose that the officer made any note of payment. It cannot, therefore, be said that the certified copy was issued by the patwari is substantial compliance with the provisions of law governing such issue. If so, it follows that the Court is not bound to draw the presumption in regard to its genuineness. In the present case although Plaintiff has examined two Patwari Amol Singh (PW2) and Shanti Swaroop (PW4) a retired Patwari, but, these documents were not got proved from their statement. Hence Ex.P/2 and P/4 are not the proved documents and therefore no reliance can be placed on them. 13. In the present case although Plaintiff has examined two Patwari Amol Singh (PW2) and Shanti Swaroop (PW4) a retired Patwari, but, these documents were not got proved from their statement. Hence Ex.P/2 and P/4 are not the proved documents and therefore no reliance can be placed on them. 13. The other reason is that even if for the sake of arguments these two documents Ex.P/2 and P/4 are taken into consideration, even then they establish the possession of Plaintiff w.e.f. 1993-94 to 1997-98 (5 years) although the case of the Plaintiff is that he is in possession in the knowledge of Defendant for last 12 years as Bhumiswami without any interruption. No document has been filed in this regard that he is in possession for last 12 years and therefore the bald statement of Plaintiff and his witnesses cannot be stretched to the extent of strict proof of adverse possession as pleaded by Plaintiff in the absence of filing of certified copy of khasra and other revenue record proving the factum of possession for 12 years. 14. In the present case, the Defendant has filed the certified copies of the Khasra but nowhere the name of original Plaintiff Devi Singh has been mentioned in these Khasra, they are Ex.D/1 to D/6 and these documents are the certified copies of Khasra w.e.f. 1970-71 to 1998-99 (29 years) and are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 77 of the Evidence Act. Hence the possession of Plaintiff for a continuous period of 12 years which is one of the essential ingredient to prove adverse possession, is not all proved. 15. I do not find any merit in the contention of learned Counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff that Defendant has not examined any witness of the village where land in question is situated and therefore finding rendered by two Courts below cannot be disturbed. It is well settled in law that Plaintiff is required to prove his case on the basis of his own pleadings and he cannot take any advantage of weakness of Defendant. In this context I may profitably place reliance Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most. Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 526 and a decision of Privy Council Jagdish Narain v. Nawab Said Ahmed Khan : AIR 1946 PC 59. In this context I may profitably place reliance Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most. Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 526 and a decision of Privy Council Jagdish Narain v. Nawab Said Ahmed Khan : AIR 1946 PC 59. At this juncture, Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff submits that by oral evidence, Khasra entry can be rebutted. There is no quarrel to this proposition because Khasra entries are only rebuttal presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act as well as under Section 117 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, but, in the present case in absence of filing relevant documents and certified copies of the relevant record and Khasra etc. by the Plaintiff to prove his possession, the certified copies of Khasra filed by Defendants are not rebutted. At this juncture, I may place reliance on the latest pronouncement of Supreme Court Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Ors.: AIR 2009 SC 103 , wherein, it has been held by Supreme Court that a person who claims adverse possession should show; (a) on what date he came into possession; (b) what was the nature of his possession; (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; (d) how long his possession has continued; and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. The Apex Court further held that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. I have already held hereinabove that although there is pleading of the adverse possession of the Plaintiff, but, he had totally failed to prove it. At this juncture, Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 has placed heavy reliance on Supreme Court decision Mahant Ram Khilawan Das v. State of M.P. 2008 (11) MPJR (SC) 300 but this decision is not applicable because in this case it has been held that entry in record of rights raises a presumption of possession. In the present case as held here-in-above the Plaintiff has not rebutted the certified copies of Khasra filed by Defendant by filing relevant documents. On the same ground, the decision of Single Bench of this Court Budhoo v. Smt. Chironja Bai and 4 Ors. In the present case as held here-in-above the Plaintiff has not rebutted the certified copies of Khasra filed by Defendant by filing relevant documents. On the same ground, the decision of Single Bench of this Court Budhoo v. Smt. Chironja Bai and 4 Ors. : 2010 (2) MPLJ 178 : 2010(1) MPJR 32 is distinguishable. 16. Hence, I am of the view that two Courts below have erred in substantial error of law in holding that Plaintiff has perfected his title of Bhumiswami by adverse possession. The substantial question of law is answered against the Plaintiff/Respondent and in the favour of Defendant/Appellant. 17. Regarding substantial question of law No. 2: Since the substantial question of law No. 1 has been decided in favour of Defendant/Appellant and the appeal has been decided only by answering the said substantial question of law, hence, there is no necessity to decide and answer this substantial question of law. 18. Resultantly, for the reasons stated hereinabove this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are hereby set aside and the suit of Plaintiff is dismissed with costs through out including this appeal also. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/- if pre-certified.