JUDGMENT :-Admit. Leamed counsel for the Respondents waive service. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant had already filed a compilation of documents for consideration of this Court. By consent of the parties, the matter is accordingly heard finally. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 17th July, 2013 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. The appellant seeks relief of declaration that the respondents have forcibly and unlawfully without prior permission of the concerned authorities demolished the compound wall and barbed wire fencing around the suit property described in prayer clause (a) of the plaint admeasuring 41,370.70 sq. meters situated at CTS Nos.8A and 8B at Parigh Khadri, TalukaAndheri, B.S.D., L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (W), Bombay-400 070. The appellant also prayed for declaration that the appellant was entitled for restoration of compound wall and barbed wire fencing. The suit was resisted by the respondents. 3. It was the case of the appellant (original plaintiff) that the appellant had purchased the suit property by an agreement for sale dated 22nd September, 1958 admeasuring 10,500 sq. mtrs. for consideration. It was the case of the appellant that name of the appellant was recorded and reflected in the revenue records and CTS Nos.8A and 8B were also reflected in the enquiry register. On 5th August, 2003, the appellant filed a Suit before the City Civil Court, Bombay. 4. The respondent no.l Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authorities (MMRDA) filed a written statement before the Trial Court and pleaded that the suit property belonged to the Government of Maharashtra. It was referred in the memo issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra dated 11th January, 1979 whereby the Government had sanctioned the suit land bearing Survey No.4 (part) under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 admeasuring 8.8537 hectares out of survey no.4 part of parighkhar to MMRDA. Pursuant to the said memo, the said land was legally transferred by the Government to MMRDA and physical possession there of was taken on 22nd July, 1984. The MMRDA placed reliance on the several documents and the evidence in support of its submission and pleaded that the appellant has committed a fraud on the Court. The other respondents also opposed the suit before the Trial Court. The appellant examined himself as one of the witnesses. The MMRDA placed reliance on the several documents and the evidence in support of its submission and pleaded that the appellant has committed a fraud on the Court. The other respondents also opposed the suit before the Trial Court. The appellant examined himself as one of the witnesses. In the evidence before the Trial Court, the appellant placed reliance on the agreement for sale dated 22nd September, 1958 in respect of the said land alleged to have been executed between the appellant and one Mr.Razzak Ali S/o. Sadique Hussain and Mr. Zakir Hussain Karimulla S/o. Sadique Hussain as seller and the appellant as a purchaser. 5. After considering the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues. "1. Does the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit premises i.e. Plot bearing C.T.S. No.3988? 2. Does he further proves that he erected the fencing lawfully? 3. It is proved by the Plaintiff that Defendants have unlawfully demolished the compound wall and barbed wire fencing? 4. Whether the plaintiff entitled to the relief of restoration of the compound wall and barbed wire fencing? 5. Whether the plaintiffis entitled to the relief of declaration, preventive injunction and mandatory injunction? 6. What order and Decree?" 6. In so far as the issue about the ownership of the suit premises of the plaintiff is concerned, the learned Trial Judge answered the said issue in the negative and held that the plaintiff had not proved that he was owner of the suit premises. The Trial Court also answered the issue no.2 in the negative, whether the plaintiff had proved that he had erected the fencing lawfully. The Trial Court answered the other three issues in the negative i) whether it was proved by the plaintiff that the defendants had unlawfully demolished the compound wall and barbed wire fencing; ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to any relief of restoration of the compound wall and barbed wire fencing; and iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs of declaration, preventive injunction and mandatory injunction. 7. The appellant placed reliance on the Deed of Confirmation dated 30th December, 2003. Along with said Deed of Confirmation dated 30th December, 2003, the appellant annexed a copy of the alleged agreement for sale dated 22nd September, 1958 and applied for stamping and registration. The appellant was cross-examined by the respondents. 7. The appellant placed reliance on the Deed of Confirmation dated 30th December, 2003. Along with said Deed of Confirmation dated 30th December, 2003, the appellant annexed a copy of the alleged agreement for sale dated 22nd September, 1958 and applied for stamping and registration. The appellant was cross-examined by the respondents. It is admitted by the appellant in the cross-examination that the he had not seen the papers while purchasing the suit premises. He was about 18 to 19" years old in the year 1958. When Confirmation Deed was shown to the witness, he admitted that on the Deed of Confirmation only the appellant had signed on behalf of the vendors as well as the purchaser. He did not produce any power of attorney on behalf of the alleged vendors in respect of the suit property. The witness admitted that there was a demand notice dated 19th October, 1991 in which, no disclosure of Survey Nos.8A and 8B was made. 8. In reply to the question raised by the Trial Court as to who was the previous owner of the suit premises according to the appellant, the appellant answered that he did not know who was the previous owner of the suit premises. He also did not produce any documentary evidence before the Court to show who was the previous owner of the suit property. The original vendors had not executed the registered sale deed of the suit premises in the year 1958. The witness did not produce copy of the sale deed alleged to have been executed in the year 2001. He did not make any enquiry with the documents of the Government in respect of the suit premises. The appellant admitted that he had already filed a suit bearing No.7683 of 1993 in respect of the suit property which was dismissed as he remained absent to conduct the suit. In the said suit, MMRDA was a party-respondent and that suit was not restored. 9. The MMRDA also examined a witness who produced documents in support of its claim for ownership. The evidence led by the MMRDA in examination-in-chief was not shaken in the cross-examination. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the existence of the agreement dated 22nd September, 1958 in respect of the suit land is proved. 9. The MMRDA also examined a witness who produced documents in support of its claim for ownership. The evidence led by the MMRDA in examination-in-chief was not shaken in the cross-examination. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the existence of the agreement dated 22nd September, 1958 in respect of the suit land is proved. It is submitted that the said document has been duly stamped and registered along with sale deed dated 22nd September, 1958. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the appellant has not proved the ownership in respect of the suit property. The Trial Court had rendered a finding against the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is in possession of the suit property since 1958. It is submitted that the name of the appellant as owner of the suit property has been entered in the city survey records. The learned counsel handed over a copy of the Deed of Confirmation along with a copy of the Agreement for Sale dated 22nd September, 1958 along with compilation of documents for perusal of this Court. 11. A perusal of the documents along with alleged agreement for sale dated 22nd September, 1958 indicate that the appellant had described the suit property as under: "Survery no.4(pt) at village parigh khar, taluka Andheri, B.S. B.L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (W), Bombay -400 070." 12. Learned counsel appearing for the MMRDA invited my attention to the fact that the Postal Index Number (PIN) system to the cities had been introduced in India in the year 1972. The said document was produced before the Trial Court indicating that the said PIN Code System was introduced in the India. Abdul Aziz Lias M, Mumbai Metropolitan Region in the year 1972 and thus, the alleged agreement executed in 1958 produced in the Court was ex facie fabricated. Learned counsel also pointed out that the metric system had been introduced in India by implementation of Standards of Weights and Measures Act which came in operation on 1st October, 1958 whereas, in the alleged agreement dated 22nd September, 1958, the measurements were given in square meters. This is the another example of fabrication of the said document. Learned counsel also pointed out that in the said agreement, the appellant has annexed the map showing boundary of land belonging to Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) on northern side. This is the another example of fabrication of the said document. Learned counsel also pointed out that in the said agreement, the appellant has annexed the map showing boundary of land belonging to Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) on northern side. It is pointed out to the Court that the BMRDA was formed in the year 1974 as a statutory body established by way of provisions under Section 3 of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Act, 1974 and thus BMRDA could not have been referred in the alleged agreement in the year 1958. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-MMRDA also pointed out that the so called deed of confirmation registered on 30th December, 2003 is signed by the appellant on behalf of the vendor as well as the purchaser. No power of attorney is either referred in the document nor produced in the Trial Court. 14. Considering these crucial facts, the Trial Court rendered a finding that the documents relied upon by the appellant in support of claiming his title in respect of the suit property are ex facie fabricated. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal clearly indicates that no such finding of fabrication of documents referred by the appellant has been specifically impugned. A perusal of the oral evidence led by the appellant and also oral evidence led by the MMRDA clearly indicates that the ownership in respect of the suit property in question was of MMRDA. 15. In my view, the subsequent documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant such as property card etc. recording the name of the appellant cannot be taken congnizance in view of the fact that the revenue authorities have obviously considered such fabricated documents. In my view, the finding rendered by the learned Trial Judge that the documents by which the appellant has claimed title are ex facie fabricated is correct and does not require any interference. 16. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff was owner of the suit premises. On the contrary, the evidence led by the defendant no. 16. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff was owner of the suit premises. On the contrary, the evidence led by the defendant no. 1 would clearly establish that the suit property belonged to the State Government and was allotted to the respondent no.1 The respondent no.l was able to demonstrate this fact by pleading documentary as well as oral evidence before the Trial Court and also to the effect that the respondent no.1 was in possession of the suit property. 17. The plaintiff has not disputed that the plaintiff had already filed the suit in the year 1993 in respect of the same subject matter which suit came to be dismissed for default. The plaintiff did not file any application for restoration of the said suit; but filed fresh suit. Merely because the name of the plaintiff came to be recorded in the revenue records by the Revenue Authorities, such record is not conclusive to prove the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not produce any evidence before the Trial Court to prove that the revenue authorities had visited the suit property and had certified the possession of the suit property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in my view, has failed to prove that the plaintiff had erected any compound wall or barbed wire fencing around the suit property or that the defendants had demolished it. The plaintiff also failed to establish that there was any barbed wire fencing surrounding the suit property or that the same was demolished by the respondent no.1 18. In so far as the map at exhibit 8 of the Plot bearing Survey Nos. 8B is concerned, it is clear that the said map is a survey diagram prepared on the request of the plaintiff. The index of the map shows that the said map was drawn on the verification of the plaintiff. Be that as it may, the map does not mention that the entire area of City Survey Nos.8/8A/8B was in possession of the plaintiff. In my view, the learned Trial Judge was thus right in holding that the said map itself was not conclusive to consider the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. In my view, merely because the defendant nos. In my view, the learned Trial Judge was thus right in holding that the said map itself was not conclusive to consider the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. In my view, merely because the defendant nos. 2 and 3 did not lead any evidence or did not file any written statement, the alleged ownership of the plaintiff cannot be considered to have been proved. The ownership in respect of the suit property was claimed by the respondent no.1 who had examined the witness and had led documentary as well as oral evidence which clearly indicate that the suit property was owned by the respondent no.1 and was in their possession. 19. There is no other submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.25,000/- payable to each of the respondents separately within a period off our weeks from today. In view of dismissal of the first appeal, civil application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. Ad-interim order passed by this Court is vacated. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant seeks continuation of the Ad -interim order passed by this Court. I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly rendered a finding of fabrication of documents. I am also convinced by perusal of the documents that the documents of title relied upon by the appel1ant are fabricated and the appellant has mislead the Trial Court. I am thus not inclined to continue the ad-interim order passed by this Court. Application for continuation of stay is accordingly rejected. Appeal dismissed.