JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.The present Regular Second Appeal was admitted on 8.9.2009, on the following substantial questions of law: (i)Whether certificate, issued with regard to date of death by the official of Gram Panchayat, which is on the basis of old record, which record has not been produced and proved, will prevail upon the entry of date of death in the Pariwar Register maintained under Panchayati Raj Act?(ii)Whether a widow, who is not in possession of the property in dispute, either constantivelly or actual, at the time of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act will, become her absolute owner thereof?(iii)Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below is vitiated on account of mis-construing the case put by the appellant?(iv)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the court below is right in law in holding that the sale deed in question could be challenged by Smt. Amrita Devi only?(v) Whether the judgment and decree of the Court below is vitiated on account of misreading and misconstruing of evidence and on account of taking into consideration the inadmissible evidence led by respondents?(vi)Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Court below is right in law in rejecting the application of the appellant U/S 30, 94 (e) read with Section 151 CPC?(vii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the courts below are right in law in not grating at least the decree of injunction particularly, the appellant and the pro form a respondents are proved to be settled possession of the property in dispute? 2.The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant herein, namely Sh. Narian Singh hereinafter to be referred as ‘the plaintiff’ had filed a suit against the respondents now to be called as “the defendants” seeking declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 18.2.1993 executed by defendant No. 2 Amrita Devi (examined as PW3), in favour of defendant No. 1 is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff with a consequential relief of injunction, in the alternative for adverse possession. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Amrita Devi defendant No. 2 was married at the age of 10 years to Sher Singh, the real brother of plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Amrita Devi defendant No. 2 was married at the age of 10 years to Sher Singh, the real brother of plaintiff. After one year of her marriage, Sher Singh died thereafter she left her matrimonial home in the year 1950 and her parents got settled her in the house of Jhasru as his wife. She gave birth to five children and never returned back. During the settlement operation, co- sharers whosoever were found in possession of the suit land, were recorded as such in the revenue record without reflecting the name of Amrita Devi aforesaid in the column of possession. Taking undue advantage of the wrong revenue entries of ownership in the name of defendant Amrita Devi, defendant No. 1 Anant Ram got executed a sale deed in his favour knowing fully well that she was not in possession of the suit property and never returned after leaving the matrimonial house and had settled down with Shri Jhasru Ram aforesaid. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 never visited Sarkaghat to execute and register the sale deed, defendant No. 1 produced another lady before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. Further the case of the plaintiff has been that he and the father of defendant No. 1 as also the proforma defendants had partitioned the suit land and were in exclusive possession thereof and have been enjoining its usufructs. Since defendant No. 2 had not returned to her matrimonial home, as such, no share was allotted to her. Plaintiff and proforma respondents aforesaid also asserted the adverse possession. Thus the plaintiff sought declaration to declare him as the owner by way of adverse possession in the alternative, over the portion of the suit land allotted to him in the private partition. 3.The suit was resisted and contested by defendant No. 1 and also the proforma defendants No. 3 and 4. They questioned the maintainability of the suit and cause of action viz-a-viz took up the point of limitation by raising the preliminary objection and on merit admitted that defendant No. 2 was married to Sher Singh, who died in the year 1957 and not in the year 1949-1950, as alleged. After his death, his estate was inherited by defendant No. 2 as his widow. After his death, his estate was inherited by defendant No. 2 as his widow. Thereafter suit land remained in the ownership and possession of the parties and other co-sharers and no private partition, as alleged was ever effected. It is also averred that the suit land remained in the ownership and possession of the parties thereafter defendant No. 2 sold her share to the son of Shri Dasauria Ram co-owner. After the sale, defendant No. 1 became owner in possession qua the share sold to him by the said defendant. Since defendant No. 2 was the full and absolute owner of the suit property, as such she was competent to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share. The plea of another lady produced for execution/registration of sale deed and adverse possession, as alleged is specifically denied. 4.On 17.11.1993 defendant No. 2 Amrita Devi did not put up her appearance. Despite her presence on the previous date, she was proceeded ex parte. Thus she had neither filed her written statement nor contested the suit. However, she had appeared as a witness for the plaintiff. 5.On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-(i)Whether the sale deed dated 18.2.1993 is null and void and not binding on the rights of plaintiff? OPP(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP(iii)Whether in alternative, the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession ? OPP.(iv)Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.(v)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD (vi)Whether the suit is within limitation? OP Parties. (vii)Whether the suit land is in the joint ownership and possession of parties? OPD.(viii) Relief. 6. Parties were put on trial and led their respective evidence in support of their claim. The learned trial Court, after considering the entire evidence held that the share of Sher Singh was inherited by defendant No. 2 after the death of her husband in the year 1957. She executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 thus, it was a legal and valid document. Since there was no private/family partition, as alleged as such the land continued to be joint inter se the parties. She executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 thus, it was a legal and valid document. Since there was no private/family partition, as alleged as such the land continued to be joint inter se the parties. It was also held that the execution of the sale deed was not challenged by defendant No.2 the vendor, therefore, plea of the plaintiff that some other person was produced at the time of execution of the sale deed, stood negated. Therefore, on these findings, material issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and decree, plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. During the pendency of appeal an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the plaintiff for leading additional evidence, i.e., to produce the copy of entry of Pariwar Register wherein the date of death of Sher Singh was shown 18.7.1955. The request was allowed vide order dated 20.7.2006. Thereafter plaintiff only tendered in evidence the abstract of Pariwar Register Ext. PX alleged to have been prepared on the old undated record. 8.In rebuttal, defendantsalso tendered in evidence the death certificate Ext. DX issued on 8.1 .2007 showing date of death 8.10.1959. None of the parties led other evidence but closed their evidence. It was thereafter an application under Section 30, 94 (e) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved on behalf of the plaintiff to examine the Secretary Gram Panchayat Thoba of Tehsil Sarkaghat to produce supportive evidence. This application was contested by the defendants on the ground that the death certificate issued on the basis of the record of the Gram Panchayat was per se admissible and this fact stands corroborated by the mutation entry of the estate of Sher Singh. Considering the rival contentions, the learned District Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the certificate Ext. DX was issued by a public servant in the discharge of his public duty which is otherwise admissible in evidence. It was also observed that while leading additional evidence, plaintiff was at liberty to examine any witness but did not choose to do so and now the plaintiff cannot be allowed to fill- up the lacuna. DX was issued by a public servant in the discharge of his public duty which is otherwise admissible in evidence. It was also observed that while leading additional evidence, plaintiff was at liberty to examine any witness but did not choose to do so and now the plaintiff cannot be allowed to fill- up the lacuna. Finally the learned first appellateCourt did not concur with the contentions raised on merit by the plaintiff as such dismissed the appeal. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9.Shri B.K. Malhorta, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned courts below wrongly appreciated the evidence qua the death of Sher Singh in absence of non- production of the record. He further argued that it stood proved that Sher Singh died before coming in to force the Hindu Succession Act 1956 and before that Amrita Devi had left the matrimonial house of her husband and settled down with Shri Jhasru Ram where she gave birth to five children. She never held suit land on coming into force the above Act, as such she was not an absolute owner qua the share of Sher Singh, therefore, she could not have sold it to defendant No. 1. It is also ventilated that in fact, defendant No. 2 never executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 which fact stands established by her own statement as PW3. He also argued that his plaintiff’s application under Section 30, 94 (e) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was wrongly dismissed and that even if Ext. DX the death certificate of Sher Singh might be admissible in evidence but in absence of supporting record, what value should be attached to it, is a prime question and relied upon Babloo Pasi versus State of Jharkhand (2008) 13 SCC 133. It is also argued that the findings of the learned trial Court that after the death of Sher Singh, Amrita Devi remained in possession of the suit land, are contrary to her own statement and also against the revenue record produced. There has been misreading and misinterpretation of law. At least evidence on record justifies the issuance of the decree of injunction against the defendants for the reason that plaintiff and proforma defendants were proved to be in settled possession which had ripened in their adverse possession. There has been misreading and misinterpretation of law. At least evidence on record justifies the issuance of the decree of injunction against the defendants for the reason that plaintiff and proforma defendants were proved to be in settled possession which had ripened in their adverse possession. To support his contention, he relied upon Padminibai versus Tangavva Air 1979 SC 1142 and Smt. Samundra Devi versus Chand Singh and others AIR 1979 HP 24. 10.To counter the aforesaid argument, Shri G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri B.C. Verma, Advocate supported the issue-wise findings recorded by the learned courts below and further submitted that in rebuttal to the Pariwar Register Ext. PX, the defendants have produced the death certificate the best evidence wherein the date of birth is recorded as 8.10.1959 has an edge over the Pariwar Register Ext. PX which has no basis for making such an entry. Therefore, it stands duly rebutted. Thus, in view of this, plaintiff cannot be given another chance to play a second inning, hence the application moved by him under Section 30, 94 (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure was rightly rejected. Further, Shri Verma argued that the learned counsel for the plaintiff is trying to establish a different case by raising new plea which was not taken before the Courts below which is impermissible. To support his contention he put his reliance on Mohammad Laiquiddin versus Kamla Devi Misra (2010) 2 SCC 407 and also submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts and no point of law much less the substantial question of law arises, therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully and thoughtfully re­examined the record. 12.As already stated above, plaintiff based his claim on oral evidence that after he death in the year 1949-50 of Shri Narian Singh husband of defendant No.2 Amrita Devi had settled down in the house of Jhasru Ram. Thereafter she never cultivated the suit land and gave birth to five children. The plaintiff did not support this version by any documentary evidence viz the birth certificate of the children etc. The sole basis was made to the stray entry without date in the Pariwar Register Ext. PX. Contra, the defendant rebutted it by the death certificate Ext. Thereafter she never cultivated the suit land and gave birth to five children. The plaintiff did not support this version by any documentary evidence viz the birth certificate of the children etc. The sole basis was made to the stray entry without date in the Pariwar Register Ext. PX. Contra, the defendant rebutted it by the death certificate Ext. DX which is issued under the Statute and has a presumption of truth. Further pleaded that the suit land was partitioned inter se the parties and since then plaintiff remained in its possession to which he along with proforma defendants adversely possessed and further that defendant No. 2 never executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 is also devoid of any merit. The Revenue record, i.e., jamabandi on record constantly shows defendant No. 2 as one of the co-owners in the suit land which was inherited by her after the death of her husband Shri Sher Singh and mutation No. 236 of inheritance was attested on 26.5.1960 on the basis of previous jamabandi in the year 1956-57, the copy of mutation is Ext. D3. The said mutation order was not challenged by the plaintiff till date. The revenue record also reveals that for the subsequent year defendant No. 2 Amrita Devi was shown one of the co-owners of the suit land constantly till she executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 registered on 18.2.1993 before the sub-Registrar Sarkaghat. The recital of the deed discloses that she also admitted having received the consideration amount from the vendee. She was duly identified by two witnesses. 13.Significantly, the plaintiff avoided to step into the witness box. His GPA Shri Munshi Ram (son) was examined as PW1 and admitted the fact of sale in favour of defendant No. 1 by Amrita Devi aforesaid but stated that the possession of the land remained with the plaintiff. In cross examination he stated that partition was orally effected and there was no writing to that effect. But however, mutation to this effect was attested but no such document was produced and proved by him. He also admitted that the suit land was not legally partitioned. About the death of Sher Singh he stated that this fact was disclosed to him by his father that he had died in the year 1950. But however, mutation to this effect was attested but no such document was produced and proved by him. He also admitted that the suit land was not legally partitioned. About the death of Sher Singh he stated that this fact was disclosed to him by his father that he had died in the year 1950. The plaintiff himself was alive but he did not examine himself, therefore, the statement of his son to this effect cannot be admitted without any supportive document. Though he denied that plaintiff has colluded with defendant No. 2 on having struck the bargain for paying her ‘ one lac but when defendant No. 2 appeared as his witness, as PW3 and also that she remained ex parte, the collusion inter se the plaintiff and her is writ-large. 14. PW2 stated that Sher Singh had died about 30 years back at that time he was a child and did not know about his wife. Pertinently he stated that both the parties have been cultivating the suit land. Though he expressed his ignorance about the mutation having been effected in favour of the wife of Sher Singh after his death and that thereafter she had sold this land to another. 15.PW3 Amrita Devi defendant did not give the date of death of her husband but according to her after his death she married to Jhasru Ram where she delivered five children. She stated that she had gone to Sarkaghat to make some purchases and she did not know what was got done by defendant No. 1 from her in the Tehsil. However, in cross examination she stated that after the death of her husband, his estate might have been inherited by her. She admitted that the land in question is joint inter se the parties. Though she denied her thumb impression in sale deed Ext. D-1 and receipt of consideration amount and also its sale to defendant No.1 whereas marginal witness DW4 Dutt Ram admitted the sale by Amrita Devi in favour of defendant No. 1 and proved the sale deed. 16.Further, PW4 has given a different version with respect to the death of Sher Singh. According to him, he died about 50 years back from the date of his examination in the Court in the year 1997 which come to the year 1945 which is not the case of the plaintiff ever. 16.Further, PW4 has given a different version with respect to the death of Sher Singh. According to him, he died about 50 years back from the date of his examination in the Court in the year 1997 which come to the year 1945 which is not the case of the plaintiff ever. But clearly admitted that after his death, his estate was inherited by Amrita Devi defendant which was joint inter se the parties and categorically stated that this land was never partitioned between them. 17.Defendant No. 1 Anant Ram as DW1 substantiated his case with respect to the sale in his favour by defendant No. 2. He also stated about the fact that the land in question was joint. According to him, when his uncle Sher Singh died he was aged about 8 years. Thus the year of death of Sher Singh comes 1959-60. He categorically denied that defendant Amrita Devi got married with Jhasru Ram in the year 1955 and also about the death of Sher Singh in the year 1950. He admitted the suggestion that defendant No. 1 got executed the sale deed in his favour and the land was already with them. 18. DW2 J.P. Sharma is the Sub-Registrar. According to him, sale deed was presented by defendant No. 2 before him who was identified by him and he executed the sale deed. She received the consideration amount. 19.DW 3 is Kewal Ram, Advocate is the son of the scribe and proved the writing of his father on the said deed. This witness is related to defendant No. 2. Similar is the statement of DW Hem Raj. He also corroborated the statement of defendant DW Suba Ram. DW7 Mukand Lal unequivocally stated about the execution of the sale deed by defendant No. 2 and thereafter its possession with defendant No. 1. They also stated that the land was joint inter se the parties. To rebut this evidence, plaintiff examined PW Param Dev. He did not state anything new. 20. On the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, I find that the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the suit land was not partitioned and it remained joint inter se the parties. Defendant No. 2 had executed the sale deed Ext. D1 in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, producing some other lady before the Registrar in view of the evidence aforesaid is completely ruled out. Defendant No. 2 had executed the sale deed Ext. D1 in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, producing some other lady before the Registrar in view of the evidence aforesaid is completely ruled out. These findings were also endorsed by the learned first Appellate Court on the reappraisal of evidence. The plaintiff during the proceedings before the first appellate Court tried to prove from the entry in the Pariwar Register that Sher Singh died in the year 1950 but it had no basis nor has presumption of truth. It also stands rebutted by the death certificate Ext. DX produced by the defendant. Thus Babloo Pasi’s case supra has no application to the facts of the present case as the value of a death certificate admitted without objection is greater than the entry regarding death in the Pariwar Register which is undated. Thereafter moving an application for producing supporting record when plaintiff had already failed to prove despite opportunity given to him, could not be allowed. Thus, his request, in my opinion, was rightly declined. 21.Now the plaintiff intends to plead a case which was not at all initially pleaded by him before the Courts below, which cannot be allowed in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Mohammad Laiquiddin versus Kamla Devi Misra [(2010) 2 SCC 407]. 22.The learned counsel for the plaintiff has laid much stress on the statement of defendant No. 2 examined as PW3 but her statement is of no consequence in view of the aforesaid circumstances when she is proved to have executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 and her statement in the suit was recorded when she was not having any interest or otherwise lost the interest in the subject matter of the suit. 23.Therefore, I do not find any illegality in rejecting the application under Section 30,94 (e) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned first appellate Court to play second inning. 24.Further, the plea of adverse possession by the plaintiff is also not proved. The requirement of law in cases where the adverse possession is claimed are that the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in the extent to show that it is adverse to competitor. 24.Further, the plea of adverse possession by the plaintiff is also not proved. The requirement of law in cases where the adverse possession is claimed are that the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in the extent to show that it is adverse to competitor. As between co-sharers, there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster which is lacking in the present case. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff are of no consequence. 25.Since the suit land was not proved to be in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, even injunctiondecree cannot be granted. Also I do not find any misinterpretation of law or mis-appreciation of evidence, therefore, appeal merits dismissed. For the aforesaid reasons, the substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. 26.The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 27.Parties to bear their own costs.