JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.6.1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge Solan in Civil Appeal No. 38-NS/13 of 1994/93 affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1993 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Solan in Civil Suit No.207/1 of 1988. Deceased appellant-plaintiff Bija Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of appellant Hemant Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) has filed a suit seeking thereby declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land entered in Khasra No.6 and 172 min situated at Mauza Top-Ki-Berh, Tehsil and District Solan and he never executed any writing/ agreement on 10.4.1988 qua this land voluntarily and the same being the result of fraud played upon him and undue influence exercised is fake, forged and fictitious, hence no right, title and interest confer on the defendants on the basis thereof over the suit land. Additionally, decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference in his ownership and peaceful possession over the suit land on the basis of this document was also sought. In the alternative, decree for possession of the suit land was sought against the defendants in the event of he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. 2. In a nut shell, it is claimed that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land. On 10.4.1988 when he was ploughing and cultivating the suit land, 15-20 persons came to the field and caught hold him. He was threatened with dire consequences and thereby forced to put his signatures on blank papers. It is that papers on which some documents regarding the transfer, alienation, mortgage etc. of the suit land were got fabricated by the defendants in their favour. It is these documents, which, according to the plaintiff do not confer any right, titled or interest in favour of the defendants qua the suit land nor binding upon him. He though served notice upon defendants No.1 and 2 on 11.4.1988 asking them not to use the documents prepared by them fraudulently, forcibly, but of no avail as on the receipt of notice they started causing interference over the suit land. 3. The stand of defendant No.1 in the written statement is that he is in possession of 18 biswas of suit land bearing Khasra No.172. 3. The stand of defendant No.1 in the written statement is that he is in possession of 18 biswas of suit land bearing Khasra No.172. His predecessors-in-interest were in possession thereof in the capacity of tenants. The revenue entries showing the plaintiff in the ownership and possession thereof are wrong. The plaintiff though assured to get the entries in the revenue record corrected and even orally as well as in writing admitted the status of defendant No.1 as tenant over a portion of the suit land measuring 18 biswas, however, instead of getting the entries thereof made in the revenue record in his favour, he has started claiming entire suit land bearing Khasra No.172 in his exclusive ownership and possession, on the basis of wrong entries. This has led in filing an application for correction of revenue entries by defendant No.1, before Land Reforms Officers, Solan. It is denied that the writing dated 10.4.1988 is the result of fraud, undue influence and threats held out by the defendants to the plaintiff and rather he voluntarily executed the same before the Gram Panchayat during the course of proceedings in an application he moved against the plaintiff when he damaged the crop sown by him in the suit land in his possession. 4. The plaintiff himself had agreed to part with his another field measuring 11 biswas entered in Khasra No.6 in lieu of the suit land measuring 18 biswas in the possession of defendant No.1. The writing was thus stated to be voluntarily executed by the plaintiff on 10.4.1988, on the very next day, he, however, refused to act in accordance with the said writing/ agreement. Defendants No.2 and 3, who have nothing to do with the suit land and only present when the writing was executed by the plaintiff voluntarily, have been wrongly impleaded as such in the suit. 5. It is submitted that he being a tenant over the suit land by operation of law has become owner thereof. As an additional plea raised in the written statement, it is submitted that since he is in possession of the suit land as owner since 1975, openly peacefully not only to the knowledge of the plaintiff, but public at large also, hence has become owner thereof by operation of law. 6. On such pleadings of the parties, learned trial court, had tried them on all issues framed in this suit. 6. On such pleadings of the parties, learned trial court, had tried them on all issues framed in this suit. After holding full trial and appreciating the given facts and circumstances as well as the evidence available on record, has dismissed the suit. 7. Learned lower appellate Court after having reappraised the oral as well as documentary evidence has taken a similar view of the matter and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree impugned in this appeal before this Court. 8. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree has been assailed on the grounds inter alia that the lower appellate has not appreciated the provisions of law nor the evidence available on record in its right perspective and the findings as recorded against the plaintiff are beyond the pleadings as well as evidence available on record. Presumption of truth is attached to the revenue entries showing him owner-in-possession of the suit land, which, however, remain un-rebutted. There being no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff or his predecessors-in-interest were tenants over the suit land under Raja Durga Singh, the plea so raised should have been discarded. There being no findings in the application for correction of revenue entries the defendants filed before the Land Reforms Officer, the suit should have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 9. The appeal was admitted, however, initially on no substantial question of law. The same, however, was deemed to have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the writing dated 10.4.1988 Ext.DW-1/B has not been acted upon by the parties and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same? 2. Whether in the absence of plea and contract of tenancy by the respondents against the appellant, the respondents could not be held to be owner? 3. Whether the parties having being failed to act upon the writing Ext.DW-1/B, it could not be made a base to dismiss the suit? 4. Whether the presumption of truth as attached to the entries in the revenue record in favour of the appellant has neither been rebutted nor the respondents can be held to acquire any interest over the suit land? 5. Whether the respondents, by raising a plea of adverse possession, admitted the ownership of the appellant? 10. Shri G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. 5. Whether the respondents, by raising a plea of adverse possession, admitted the ownership of the appellant? 10. Shri G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate while making a reference to the pleadings and evidence available on record has pointed out that it is the plaintiff, who is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. The plea i.e. firstly, the land was given to him by the plaintiff in exchange, secondly, the same is in his possession in the capacity of a tenant and; thirdly, he acquired title therein by way of adverse possession, according to the learned counsel are self contradictory. The so called writing/ agreement dated 10.4.1988, Ex.DW-1/B, qua exchange of land baring Khasra No.6 with defendants is not at all proved. Issue No.4 (e) qua adverse possession is decided against the defendant. The plaintiff and defendant have been held co-owners; such findings are not only contradictory but confusing also. The documentary evidence produced by the defendant without there being any pleadings is not admissible. 11. On the other hand, Khasra Girdawari Ex.PA and Jamabandi, Ex. PB show that it is the plaintiff, who is owner in possession of the suit land bearing Khasra numbers 6 and 172. Similar entries, according to the learned counsel, found to have been made in the Jamabandi Ex.P-4 for the year 1983-84. In case Khasra No.6 was agreed to be given to defendant No.1, how the suit qua Khasra No.172 could have been dismissed. It is also pointed out that the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land bearing Khasra No.172 whereas the suit land bearing Khasra No.6 is not in controversy in the suit, therefore, the suit should have been decreed. 12. On the other hand, Shri Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate while drawing the attention of this Court to the substantial questions of law raised for determination in this appeal, it is pointed out that no arguments have been addressed on substantial questions of law by learned counsel for plaintiff and rather submissions have been made contrary to the record. It is submitted that in the plaint, suit land is not only Khasra No.172, but Khasra No.6 also. While inviting the attention of this Court to the documentary evidence, it is contended that the plaintiff and defendant were tenants under Raja Durga Singh, over the suit land. It is submitted that in the plaint, suit land is not only Khasra No.172, but Khasra No.6 also. While inviting the attention of this Court to the documentary evidence, it is contended that the plaintiff and defendant were tenants under Raja Durga Singh, over the suit land. They have now became owner thereof. The entries, however, are still in the name of the plaintiff. He is taking undue advantage thereof. No order for correction of revenue entries in the application filed by defendant No.1 was passed in view of the suit was pending before the Sub-Judge. The writing Ex.DW-1/B was voluntarily executed by the plaintiff before the Gram Panchayat and other respectable of the area. While referring to the evidence as has come on record by way of own testimony of the plaintiff, it is contended that the same cannot be relied upon. Right from the very beginning, defendant No.1 and his predecessor-in-interest had been claiming tenancy under Raja Durga Singh and the plea of adverse possession was raised in the shape of additional plea. The same being not contradictory to the stand taken by defendant No.1, the plaintiff cannot get any benefit out of it. 13. In rebuttal, learned counsel for plaintiff, while pointing out that the application for correction of revenue entries filed by defendant No.1 was dismissed, has contended that in case the documentary evidence produced by him has to be relied upon, defendant No.1 is entitled to the possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No.6 and in that event the decree of suit land bearing Khasra No.172 deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiff. 14. The present is a case of concurrent findings recorded by both courts below against the plaintiff. Unless and until the findings recorded by both courts below are not found to be perverse, no interference therewith is warranted in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the code of Civil Procedure. To form an opinion to this effect, I am taking the support of the judgment of apex Court in Bandhu Mahto (dead) by LRs. and another Versus Bhukhli Mahatain and others, (2007) 10 SCC 564 , in which it is held that the concurrent findings recorded after proper appreciation of the evidence should normally be not interfered with in regular second appeal. and another Versus Bhukhli Mahatain and others, (2007) 10 SCC 564 , in which it is held that the concurrent findings recorded after proper appreciation of the evidence should normally be not interfered with in regular second appeal. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows:- “On examination of the reasonings recorded by the First Appellate Court, which are affirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Second Appeal, we are of the view that the judgments of the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court are well-reasoned based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record. No question of law much less a substantial question of law was involved in this case before the High Court. We do not find any perversity or infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court and affirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court to warrant interference in this appeal. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants can be sustained.” 15. The claims and counter claims as laid on both sides and also the substantial questions of law as formulated can conveniently be set at rest with the help of documentary evidence available on record. There cannot be any controversy and rather it is the admitted case of the parties that Raja Durga Singh was owner of the land including suit land. The plaintiff and Shri Dehak, father of defendant No.1 along with other villagers were in possession thereof. It finds recorded so in the application for correction of revenue entries dated 21.10.1952 Ex.PAX-1, in which, beside others, plaintiff and aforesaid Shri Dehak, predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.1 were also petitioner at Sl. No.6 and 8 and Raja Durga Singh was respondent. In the cause title of this application Khasra number of the suit land also finds mention. Ex. PAX-2 is the office report made in that application by the reader to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Solan. Ex.PAX-3 is the power of attorney, which besides the plaintiff Bija Ram bears signature of Dehak Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.1. Ex.PAX-4 is the written statement filed to that suit on behalf of the defendant. Ex.PAX-5 is the only issue framed in that suit, which reads as follows:- Whether the relation of tenant and land lord exists between the parties? OPP. 16. Ex. Ex.PAX-4 is the written statement filed to that suit on behalf of the defendant. Ex.PAX-5 is the only issue framed in that suit, which reads as follows:- Whether the relation of tenant and land lord exists between the parties? OPP. 16. Ex. PAX is the statement of Gorkhu Ram, plaintiff No.1 and Ex.PA-7, the statement of one Khayali Ram, servant of defendant Raja Durga Singh. Ex.PAX-8 is the order whereby the suit was adjourned to 31.3.1956. On that date the same was dismissed in default vide order Ex.PAX-9. It is seen from the record of above suit registered as case No.3/1 that not only the plaintiff but the predecessor in interest of defendant No.1 was also plaintiff therein being in possession of the suit land. 17. The plaintiff has also filed an application dated 14.7.1982, Ex.PAX-10 registered as case No.23/13-B before Collector Solan for correction of entries on the ground that the land including the suit land bearing Khasra No,172 is recorded in his ownership and possession, however, S/Shri Het Ram and Chet Ram are also in possession thereof and that the correction may be ordered accordingly, however, without impleading defendants No.1 as party thereto. As per the endorsement made by the collector Solan, Sub Division Ex.PAX-12. On 16.7.1982, this application was forwarded in original to Tehsildar Solan for report. The Tehsildar vide endorsement dated 17.7.1982, forwarded the same to field Kanoongo for inquiry and report. The field Kanoongo further forwarded the same to Patwari Halka for inquiry and report vide endorsement Ex.PAX-13 dated 3.8.1982. During the inquiry, joint statement of plaintiff and aforesaid Shri Het Ram and Shri Chet Ram was recorded on 26.8.1982. They corroborated the contents of the application Ex.PAX-10 that besides the plaintiff the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 was in possession of Chet Ram and Het Ram also. The report was submitted by Patwari and Field Kanoongo to Tehsildar concerned and the matter was taken up on 1.9.1982 when adjourned to 30.9.1982 vide order Ex.PAX-14. On the date fixed vide order Ex.PAX-15 a report was submitted to Collector, Solan that in the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 besides plaintiff Bija Ram, S/Shri Chet Ram and Het Ram also deserve to be recorded owner-in-possession thereof to the extent of their shares. 18. On the date fixed vide order Ex.PAX-15 a report was submitted to Collector, Solan that in the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 besides plaintiff Bija Ram, S/Shri Chet Ram and Het Ram also deserve to be recorded owner-in-possession thereof to the extent of their shares. 18. The another set of documentary evidence is in the application registered as case No.14/13-B. for correction of revenue entries of the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 filed by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff. The inquiry in this application seems to be conducted by Field Kanoongo, Solan. He has recorded the statement of Shri Het Ram Ex.PW-2/A, who has stated that the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 besides him to the extent of half share, the remaining half is in the possession of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in equal share. Also that the correction of revenue entries of the land sought by Chatter Singh is called ‘Sohal’ and that it is said Shri Chatter Singh, who is cultivating the same since time immemorial. 19. To the similar effect is the statement Ex.DW-4/A-3 of defendant Chatter Singh in that proceeding. Shri Bija Ram plaintiff has also been associated in those proceedings, who as per his statement Ex.DW-4/A, no doubt stated that the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 called as ‘Sohal’, though was in his exclusive possession, however, the villagers have snatched the same now from him forcibly. This shows the admission on the part of the plaintiff that he is not owner in possession of the entire suit land. In the correction proceedings aforesaid, the statements of Shri Ishwar Dutt Ex.PW-4/A-1 has also been recorded. He has also admitted the possession of defendant No.1 in the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 called ‘Sohal’ and prior to him, his father Dehak S/o Shri Jiyunu Ram used to cultivate the same. 20. Another person associated in these proceedings is Shri Jai Dutt, whose statement Ex.DW-4/A-2 also reveals that the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 to the extent of half share is with Het Ram and Chet Ram and the remaining half is in equal share with plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is after recording such evidence the field Kanoongo has submitted the report Ex.DW-4/A, recommending therein that during the course of inquiry conducted by him, defendant No.1 was found in possession of land measuring 12 biswas out of the suit land bearing Khasra No.172. It is after recording such evidence the field Kanoongo has submitted the report Ex.DW-4/A, recommending therein that during the course of inquiry conducted by him, defendant No.1 was found in possession of land measuring 12 biswas out of the suit land bearing Khasra No.172. The joint statement of ten persons i.e Shonu Ram etc. Ex.DW-4/A-5 was also recorded and they also stated in one voice that the suit land was in the ownership of Raja Durga Singh, however, in possession of Bija Ram and Chatter Singh to the extent of half share and Het Ram to the extent of remaining half. The order passed in the correction application is Ex.DX/2. The same reveals that the application has been dismissed on the sole ground that this suit was pending qua the same subject matter of dispute in the Civil Court and not on merits and rightly so because by that time the present suit came to be filed in the trial court. Such overwhelming documentary evidence leads to the only conclusion that it is not the plaintiff alone, who was owner-in-possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No.172, but defendant No.1 Chatter Singh and Het Ram are also in possession thereof. 21. Not only this, but the plaintiff lodged FIR No.162 of 1988 in Police Station, Solan under Sections 325, 323 and 506 IPC against defendant No.1 and other members of his family. The subject matter of dispute in that FIR was also suit land bearing Khasra No.172. The Challan was filed against defendant No.1 and other accused persons in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Solan, however, as per judgment Ex.DX/1, no case against them was found to be made out and as such they were acquitted. 22. The writing Ex.DW-1/A dated 6.12.1980, reveals that the plaintiff had admitted the possession of defendant No.1 over the suit land call as ‘Sohal’ i.e. part of the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 and on receipt of Rs.425/- from defendant No.1, agreed to enter the same in the revenue record in the name of defendant No.1. In April 1988, the plaintiff has uprooted the peas crop sown by defendant No.1 in this land. This has led in filing an application by defendant No.1 in Gram Panchayat Deothi on 10.4.1988. In April 1988, the plaintiff has uprooted the peas crop sown by defendant No.1 in this land. This has led in filing an application by defendant No.1 in Gram Panchayat Deothi on 10.4.1988. In that application, the parties entered into a compromise, which was reduced in writing and is exhibited as DW-1/B. As per the settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the former agreed to part with his other land measuring 11 biswas bearing Khasra No.6 in lieu of the portion of suit land called as ‘Sohal’ in possession of the defendant. This compromise was executed on 10.4.1988. Over land comprised in Khasra No.6, agreed to be given to defendant No.1, PW-3 Badri Dutt, had sown garlic crop as it was given to him by the plaintiff for cultivation purposes on 10.4.1988 itself, defendant No.1 paid a sum of Rs.400/- vide receipt Ex.DW-1/G to said Shri Badri Dutt. All these documents, on the face of it have been executed in presence of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat and other respectables. 23. The plaintiff even received Rs.500/- from defendant No.1, the cost of six Plum trees standing over the land bearing Khasra No.6, agreed to be transferred in the name of defendant No.1, as is evident from receipt Ex.DW-1/C executed on that very day. He, however, did not honour that compromise and on the next day i.e. 11.4.1988 served upon defendant No.1 and Ishwari Dutt, defendant No.2, legal notice Ex.P-5 highlighting therein that Ex.DW-1/B is not the result of his free will and rather managed under threat. The defendants, however, replied the notice and the reply is dated 24.6.1988 Ex.DW-1/D/PW-1/C. 24. The overwhelming documentary evidence, which can even be termed as cogent and reliable also leads to the only conclusion that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are owner-in-possession of half of the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 in equal shares. No doubt, they agreed to exchange the same with Khasra No.6 belonging to the plaintiff vide compromise deed Ex.DW-1/B. He even made the payment of six trees of plum standing over the suit land bearing Khasra No.6 and Rs.400/- to Badri Dutt, the cost of garlic crop, he has sown thereon. It is, however, the plaintiff, who himself resiled from his commitment and the deed of compromise/writing Ex.DW-1/B was never acted upon. It is, however, the plaintiff, who himself resiled from his commitment and the deed of compromise/writing Ex.DW-1/B was never acted upon. However, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the same could not have been relied upon by both the courts below while dismissing the suit. In my considered opinion, the said compromise deed being a material piece of evidence being duly proved on record establish that the plaintiff has admitted the possession of defendant over part of the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 and it is for this reason he had agreed to exchange the same with another piece of land bearing Khasra No.6. 25. So far as defendant No.1, the tenant in the suit land, is concerned, it is duly proved on record from the plaint Ex.PAX-1 and the further proceedings having taken place thereunder on 31.3.1956 vide order Annexure PAX-9 because Shri Dehaku, the father of defendant No.1 was also one of the plaintiffs therein. Therefore, there cannot be any controversy in this behalf also. No doubt, the suit land in the revenue record has been entered in the name of the plaintiff, however, presumption of truth attached to such entries stands rebutted from overwhelming documentary evidence discussed supra, showing defendant No.1 in possession over a portion of the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 namely ‘Sohal’. Defendant No.1 has never raised the plea of adverse possession and the case as set out by way of additional plea in the written statement, it is only submitted that he is in possession of the suit land as owner since 1975, openly, peacefully not only to the knowledge of the plaintiff but the public at large also and as such plaintiff has no right title and interest over the suit land. Otherwise also, such an alternative plea in the written statement by defendant No.1 in his defence cannot be said to be destructive in nature. 26. The court finds no force in the arguments that there is variance in the pleadings and proof brought on record by defendant No.1 to substantiate his claim for the reason that the simple case of the said defendant is that he is owner in possession of a portion of the suit land namely ‘Sohal’ bearing Khasra No.172. 26. The court finds no force in the arguments that there is variance in the pleadings and proof brought on record by defendant No.1 to substantiate his claim for the reason that the simple case of the said defendant is that he is owner in possession of a portion of the suit land namely ‘Sohal’ bearing Khasra No.172. As regards the exchange of the suit land bearing Khasra No.172 in possession of the defendant with another piece of land of the plaintiff bearing Khasra No.6, no doubt, during the course of proceedings initiated by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff before the local Gram Panchayat, an agreement, which is Ex.DW-1/B was entered into between the parties, however, it is the plaintiff who did not honour the same and rather on the very next day refused to act upon that. The plea to this effect has accordingly been taken by the defendant in the written statement. The documentary evidence Ex.DW-1/B, Ex.DW-1/C and Ex.DW-1/G, produced by the defendants is to establish the admission of his possession by the plaintiff over a portion of the suit land called as ‘Sohal’ as it is for this reason that he agreed to exchange the same with another piece of land bearing Khasra No.6. The present is thus not a case of variance in pleadings and proof and as such the ratio of the judgments of the apex Court in S.N. Ranade versus Union of India and Anr., AIR 1964, SC, 24 and in Om Prabha Jain versus Abnash Chand & Anr., AIR 1968 SC, 1083 is not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of this case. 27. As regards the judgment of the apex court in Sea Lark Fisheries versus United India Insurance Company & another, (2008) 4 SCC 13, the same is also not applicable in this case as the present is not a case of suppression of material facts by the defendants from this Court. 28. The defendant is not only owner but also in possession of the suit land called as ‘Sohal’. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue entries in the revenue record showing the plaintiff alone is owner in possession of this land stands rebutted as already discussed hereinabove. Thus, it lies ill that the title of the defendant is only possessory and the title qua the entire suit land is that of the plaintiff. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue entries in the revenue record showing the plaintiff alone is owner in possession of this land stands rebutted as already discussed hereinabove. Thus, it lies ill that the title of the defendant is only possessory and the title qua the entire suit land is that of the plaintiff. Consequently, the law laid down by the apex Court in State of Mysore versus Padmanabhacharya, AIR 1966 SC, 602 has also no application in this case. 29. The oral evidence as has come on record by way of own testimony of the plaintiff while in the witness box as PW-1 has rightly been appreciated and discarded by both courts below. On the other hand, in his cross examination he has admitted that his father was tenant under Raja Durga Singh and the father of Chatter Singh (defendant No.1) was also tenant under Raja Durga Singh and that the land in dispute is called as ‘Sohal Ka Khet’. Though he has denied his signature encircled red at point ‘A’ in Ex.DW-1/A (mark ‘A’) and encircled red at Point ‘G’ in Ex.DW-1/C (mark G), however, self stated that he was made to put these signatures by Ishwar Dutt etc. under threat. All other documents (Mark E, F and G) also stated to have his signatures, however, he cannot say that these are his signatures. He has also made an effort to state that his eye sight is week. The veracity of his testimony is highly doubtful. No doubt PW-3 Shri Badri Dutt has stated that the entire suit land is in the possession of plaintiff and that the defendant quarreled with him when he was plowing the same. He, however, seems to be a stock witness because it is admitted that against defendant Chatter Singh he is appearing as witness on third occasion. He has admitted the position of defendant No.1, however, according to him the same is unauthorized. This witness is thus liar. 30. The defendant No.1, who himself has stepped in the witness box has proved his entire case as set out in the plaint. Both the courts below have rightly dismissed the suit after proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. This witness is thus liar. 30. The defendant No.1, who himself has stepped in the witness box has proved his entire case as set out in the plaint. Both the courts below have rightly dismissed the suit after proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The parties being before this court in a regular second appeal and the judgment and decree impugned is not perverse nor suffers any illegality or irregularity need no interference by this Court. 31. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this appeal, being devoid of any merit, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.