JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.:- This is plaintiff-appellants’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 4.9.2008, whereby the suit of plaintiff Ajit Singh (since deceased and now represented by LRs) for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land, with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. Further challenge has been laid to judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 8.2.2012 whereby plaintiff-appellants’ appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed. 2. As per the facts in the plaint, the suit land was jointly owned by plaintiff Ajit Singh and his brothers. Ved Parkash (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants) used to cultivate the suit land, as tenant gair marusi without paying any rent. After his death, the tenancy rights devolved upon defendants no.1 and 2, being widow and son of said Ved Parkash. In the year 1982, a petition was filed in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani for their ejectment. However, inadvertently, his daughters i.e. defendants no.3 to 7 were also impleaded in that petition, though they never cultivated the suit land. After filing of the petition, defendants also filed an application in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani, claiming occupancy rights in the suit land. 3. According to the plaintiff, defendant no.1 used to cultivate the suit land and defendant nos.2 to 7 never cultivated the same, being minor at that time. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in those proceedings, defendant no.1 appointed one Inder Singh as her General Power of Attorney, who used to appear on her behalf and in those proceedings, a compromise was got effected and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was given to Inder Singh on behalf of defendant no.1, as compensation, on 9.7.1985 in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani and thereafter, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In this regard, Inder Singh put his thumb impression along with Shri Satbir Singh Chaudhary, Advocate. Since then, plaintiff was in continuous possession of the suit land as owner and the defendants had no concern with the same. Later on, a family settlement took place and the sisters of the plaintiff suffered a decree in favour of the plaintiff and other brothers. Since then, plaintiff was in continuous possession of the suit land as owner and the defendants had no concern with the same. Later on, a family settlement took place and the sisters of the plaintiff suffered a decree in favour of the plaintiff and other brothers. Thereafter, the suit land measuring 64 kanals 3 marlas was got partitioned by plaintiff and his brothers. The suit land had fallen to the share of plaintiff Ajit Singh. Mutations in this regard have already been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers. The concerned Patwari was also requested to make the entries in khasra girdawaris in favour of the plaintiff. However, he came to know that the entry was continuing in the name of Ved Parkash, father of defendants No.2 to 7, on the basis of which, the defendants were bent upon to interfere in his possession over the suit land, for which, they have no right. Hence, the suit. 4. Upon notice, defendants No.2 to 7 appeared, as defendant No.1 had already died and filed joint written statement contesting the suit, raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff was one of the owners of the suit land and their predecessor-in-interest used to cultivate the suit land on nominal rent for the last more than 50 years. It was further pleaded that they had no knowledge regarding filing of the suit by them or on their behalf. Thus, proceedings for ejectment and occupancy tenant were initiated falsely only to create evidence. After the death of Ved Parkash, they were in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land, as tenant, which never came to an end. Inder Singh was not the General Power of Attorney of defendant no.1. No compromise was effected between the parties. Neither any guardian of the minors was appointed nor any application in this regard was moved. Inder Singh was never authorized to enter into any compromise or to receive Rs.5,000/-, as compensation, or to give statement in Court to withdraw any suit. The girdwaris in the name of the defendants are correct. Since the defendants are in possession of the suit land, question of their interference into the possession of plaintiff does not arise. Thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 5. No replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. 6. The girdwaris in the name of the defendants are correct. Since the defendants are in possession of the suit land, question of their interference into the possession of plaintiff does not arise. Thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 5. No replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? OPP (2) Whether the revenue entries showing cultivation of Ved Parkash son of Jagan as gair marusi on payment of lagan are liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP (3) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP (5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD (7) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD (8) Relief. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 4.9.2008. 8. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, LRs of the plaintiff/appellants preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court which was also dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court observed as under:- 10. Perusal of the file shows that the plaintiff Ajit Singh had claimed his ownership and possession over the land measuring 64 Kanals 13 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 272 // 19 (8-0), 20 (8-0), 21 (8-0), 22 ( 8-0 ). 282 // 1 (8 -0), 2 (8-0), 10/1 (2-13), 283 // 4/2 (6-0), 5 (8-0) situated at Dhani - Mahu, Tehsil Tosham District Bhiwani. It is the allegation of plaintiff Ajit Singh that all his brothers and sisters were joint owners in possession. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that petition was filed in the Court of AC 1st Grade, Bhiwani in the year 1982 by the plaintiff against the defendants for their ejectment. Inadvertently, the daughters of Ved Parkash were also impleaded who had never cultivated the suit land. As per the averment of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 Smt. Indrawati had appointed lnder Singh as her General Power of Attorney. Inadvertently, the daughters of Ved Parkash were also impleaded who had never cultivated the suit land. As per the averment of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 Smt. Indrawati had appointed lnder Singh as her General Power of Attorney. Much stress has been given on appointment of General Power of Attorney which was not believed by the learned trial court. Perusal of the file shows that photocopy of application Ex. P 1 has been placed on the record allegedly moved by Smt. Indrawati and others seeking permission to enter into compromise. The photocopy of affidavit of lnder Singh has been placed on the record as Ex. P 2, photocopy of certificate of Shri Satbir Singh Chaudhary, Advocate has also been placed on the record as Ex. P3 showing that entering into compromise would be in the benefit of minors. The compromise dated 09.07.1985 has also been placed on record as Ex. P4. Similar is the position of the statement of Inder Singh and order passed by AC 1st Grade, Bhiwani. The learned trial court has rightly dealt with this issue that no guardian of the minors was appointed and Shri Satbir Singh Chaudhary, Advocate had no right to give statement on behalf of the minors that it would be in the interest of minors to enter into a compromise. Learned trial court has also rightly observed that neither any permission was sought by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to produce the photocopy of Power of Attorney, statement made by Power of Attorney and affidavit of Power of Attorney nor any application was moved before the learned trial court seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence. In the absence of such permission, it was observed by the learned trial Court that the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Smt. Indrawati in favour of lnder Singh does not stand proved. For the same reason, all the proceedings on the basis of alleged Power of Attorney were not accepted by the learned trial Court. It is not disputed that no efforts have been made by the appellants/plaintiffs to prove the application moved before the Court of AC 1st Grade, Bhiwani to enter into a compromise by lnder Singh on behalf of Smt. Indrawati in the capacity of Power of Attorney. It is not disputed that no efforts have been made by the appellants/plaintiffs to prove the application moved before the Court of AC 1st Grade, Bhiwani to enter into a compromise by lnder Singh on behalf of Smt. Indrawati in the capacity of Power of Attorney. Though learned counsel for the respondent 7 defendants has not appeared before the appellant Court to contest the claim of the plaintiff, yet the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and he can not take advantage of deficiency in the case of the defendants. 11. No ground to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court on Issues No. 1 & 2 is made out. Hence, the findings of trail Court on Issue No. 1 & 2 are hereby upheld. 12. Issue No. 3 relates to limitation in filing of the suit. Learned trial Court has rightly observed that alleged compromise was entered into on 09.07.1985 and the present suit has been filed in the year 2000. There is no explanation for filing the suit after fifteen years and the learned trial Court has rightly observed the suit being barred by limitation. Hence, the findings of Learned trial court on Issue No. 3 are hereby reiterated. 13. Issues No. 4, 5, & 6 relate to entitlement of the plaintiff to relief of injunction, maintainability of the suit and estoppel. In view of findings under Issues No. 1 & 2, it is hereby observed that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction, hence issue no. 4 is hereby decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 5 relates to maintainability of the suit. In view of the findings on Issues No. 1 to 3, it is hereby observed that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and for the reasons mentioned in forgoing paragraphs it is hereby observed that the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filling the suit. Hence, Issue No. 5 & 6 are hereby decided in favour of the defendants 8 respondents and against the plaintiffs-appellants.” 9. Still not satisfied, LRs of the plaintiff have filed the instant appeal submitting that following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration of this Court:- “(I) Whether the courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the documents especially Exhibit P-14? Still not satisfied, LRs of the plaintiff have filed the instant appeal submitting that following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration of this Court:- “(I) Whether the courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the documents especially Exhibit P-14? (II) Whether the courts below have misread the evidence and misinterpreted the documents? (Ill) Whether registered power of attorney is presumed to be correct and it is notice to all? (IV) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case power of attorney Exhibit P-14 is presumed to be proved? (V) Whether compromise proceedings before revenue courts are valid?” 10. Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Courts below have erred at law while misinterpreting and misconstruing the General Power of Attorney (Ex.P14). The said document is a registered document which is presumed to be true and correct. The said document was neither challenged by the defendants nor it was cancelled. The execution of the said power of attorney was duly proved. The learned counsel further argued that the original record was produced, therefore, the defect of nonproduction of original General Power of Attorney has no effect and the document in question stands duly proved by producing the original record from the concerned office and thus, the substantial questions of law, as raised, do arise in this appeal. 11. The argument raised is misconceived and liable to be rejected outrightly. Admittedly, a document can be proved either by producing the same in original or by leading secondary evidence with the permission of the Court, as provided under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Admittedly, the original Power of Attorney executed by defendant no.1 in favour of one Inder Singh was not produced on record. It is further not in dispute that no permission of the Court was sought to prove the same by leading secondary evidence and in view thereof, any evidence led by the respondents to prove the General Power of Attorney in question, by bringing the officials of the registering authority of General Power of Attorney, would not fill in the lacunae to satisfy the provisions of the Evidence Act for proving a document. 12. Counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that in case the General Power of Attorney of Inder Singh, as set up by the appellant, is not accepted, the appellants have no further case. 13. 12. Counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that in case the General Power of Attorney of Inder Singh, as set up by the appellant, is not accepted, the appellants have no further case. 13. No other point has been raised. 14. In view thereof, no substantial question arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------