ORDER : Ashok Kumar Joshi, J. The appellant/original plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by a common judgment and decree dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Betul in regular Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2012 filed by the present appellant and in Civil Appeal No. 6-A/2011 filed by the present respondents No. 1 to 5, by which appellant Kaushalya Bai's appeal in relation to her suit was dismissed but the another appeal filed by above mentioned respondents was allowed in reference to their counter claim, whereas the trial Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Bhaisdehi, District Betul by its judgment dated 1.8.2011 passed in Civil Suit No. 60-A/2011 had dismissed both plaintiff Kaushalya Bai's suit and counter claim filed by the above mentioned respondents. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of her alleged adverse possession for relief of declaration and perpetual injunction, in which the above mentioned respondents had filed counter claim for delivering of possession and perpetual injunction. 2. Admittedly, the defendants No. 4 and 5 are respectively son and daughter of the respondent/defendant No. 1 Pyare and the respondent No. 1 Pyare had executed a registered sale-deed on 2.6.2008 in favour of the respondents/defendants No. 2 to 5. 3. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that the appellant herein filed a suit contending that the recorded Bhoomiswami respondent No. 1 Pyare had sold a plot measuring 25 x 35 ft, in total 875 sq.ft, which is part of Survey No. 129/1 total area 0.583 Hectares of the village Khamla to respondent/defendant No. 6 Chandrakala under the contract to sale. Chandrakala after constructing a Kachcha house in the year 1992 was living in that house. Chandrakala sold the disputed plot after taking cash of Rs.10,000/- from the appellant to her on the date 27.6.1996 and from 27.6.1996, the appellant/plaintiff was in possession of the plot and constructed house over it. Thus the appellant being in possession of the concerned land with house for more than 12 years openly, in knowledge of the general public and respondent No. 1 Pyare denying his title. The appellant was regularly paying house tax to the Gram Panchayat, Khamla from 1992. Thus the appellant being in possession of the concerned land with house for more than 12 years openly, in knowledge of the general public and respondent No. 1 Pyare denying his title. The appellant was regularly paying house tax to the Gram Panchayat, Khamla from 1992. The appellant has earned title on the basis of adverse possession over the plot, but the respondent/defendant No. 1 Pyare after making conspiracy with his relatives respondents/defendants No. 2 to 5 has executed a registered sale-deed on 2.6.2008 without receiving any consideration in favour of the respondents/defendants No. 2 to 5. Thus the plaintiff sought relief for declaration of her title over the disputed plot on the basis of adverse possession and for issuance of perpetual injunction against the defendants from interfering in possession of the appellant over the plot relating to Kachcha house. 4. The defendant/respondent No. 6 Chandrakala remained ex parte before the trial Court and the appellate Court and had not filed any pleading. 5. In joint written statement filed by the defendants/respondents No. 1 to 5, it was pleaded that the defendant no.1 Pyare never executed any agreement or sale-deed in favour of the defendant No. 6 Chandrakala and had never given possession of the disputed plot to Chandrakala. The defendant No. 1 and other joint owners have constructed a temporary Kotha over the disputed plot and the husband of Chandrakala being a watchman at dam's site, was permitted to keep instruments and necessary material in the Kachcha Kotha. Chandrakala had not sold the plot or relating Kotha to appellant/plaintiff Kaushalya and the plaintiff Kaushalya had forcefully possessed the Kotha only from June, 2008 after creating some forged documents with conspiracy of Sarpanch concerned. Defendant No. 1 Pyare had sold 37 x 90 ft, in total 3330 sq.ft land to the defendants No. 2 to 5 by a registered sale-deed. Appellant Kaushalya has no any right or title in the land. The defendants No. 2 to 5 are owners of the disputed land and thus their counter claim for getting the possession the disputed land be decreed. 6. Appellant Kaushalya has no any right or title in the land. The defendants No. 2 to 5 are owners of the disputed land and thus their counter claim for getting the possession the disputed land be decreed. 6. The trial Court after recording evidence of the parties recorded findings in the judgment that the alleged adverse possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the disputed plot is not proved, appellant/plaintiff Kaushalya is not entitled for relief of perpetual injunction, but also recorded finding that the defendants No. 2 to 5 are not owners of the disputed plot and relating house and the defendants No. 2 to 5 are not entitled for getting possession of it from the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and counter claim of the defendants No. 2 to 5. 7. Against judgment and decree of the trial Court plaintiff Kaushalya and defendants No. 1 to 5 filed separate appeals before the above mentioned appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff Kaushalya, but allowed the appeal of the defendants No. 2 to 5 and decreed the counter claim filed by the defendants No. 2 to 5 and declared that the defendants No. 2 to 5 are owners of the purchased plot and the appellant/plaintiff Kaushalya was ordered to give vacant possession of the disputed land to the respondent/defendants No. 2 to 5, but both the parties were directed to bear their own expenses. 8. Appellant's learned counsel contended that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of the suit whereas from exhibited receipts, it was proved that the house tax to the Gram Panchayat was paid by the appellant/plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 Pyare and defendants No. 2 to 5 are mutually close relatives. Thus, the executed registered sale-deed was without any consideration. The first appellate Court has erred in decreeing the counter claim filed by the respondents/defendants No. 2 to 5. The Courts below have not properly evaluate the oral evidence of Kadma (P.W.2) and Kishan (P.W.3) in relation to possession of the plaintiff, by which the open and hostile possession of the appellant/plaintiff Kaushalya continuously for more than 12 years was proved, but the Courts below have disbelieved them. The Courts below have not properly evaluate the oral evidence of Kadma (P.W.2) and Kishan (P.W.3) in relation to possession of the plaintiff, by which the open and hostile possession of the appellant/plaintiff Kaushalya continuously for more than 12 years was proved, but the Courts below have disbelieved them. The appellant/plaintiff has relied on Ex.P/1 executed by respondent No. 6 Chandrakala in her favour on 27.6.1996 and Ex.P.2 which was allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 Pyare in favour of Chandrakala on 6.4.1992. Each of these documents has been titled as 'sale-deed' but both of them are unregistered and also not properly stamped. Ex.P.2 is on a stamp of Rs.10/- only though the consideration of relating sale is shown as Rs.3000/- in it. Ex.P/1 is surprisingly typed on total stamp of Rs.6/-, though the consideration of plot with house is shown as Rs.10000/- in total. In relation to Ex.P/1, executant Chandrakala was not examined and no any other witness was examined for the plaintiff in relation to both of the above mentioned documents. Though each of the above mentioned documents is titled as 'sale-deed', the plaintiff has pleaded in her plaint each of above documents as contract to sale (Sauda Chitti). Each document refers to sale and is not having any reference to any registered sale-deed to be executed in future. Thus, there was material contradiction between the pleadings and documents relied on by the appellant/plaintiff. It is significant to mention here that the area of plot and house situated on it, was also different in both of these documents. 9. Each of the above documents was unregistered and not on proper stamp. Thus, legally these documents do not create or confer any interest in the immoveable property concerned. Thus, above mentioned documentary evidence was meaningless. When Chandrakala was not having any title or right in the plot concerned, she could not transfer it to anyone. 10. The oral evidence given by Kaushalya (P.W.1), Kadma (P.W.2) and Kishan (P.W.3) is not worthy of any discussion. Kadma (P.W.2) has admitted in cross-examination that he is not a witness to any of the contract to sale. 11. When Chandrakala was not having any title or right in the plot concerned, she could not transfer it to anyone. 10. The oral evidence given by Kaushalya (P.W.1), Kadma (P.W.2) and Kishan (P.W.3) is not worthy of any discussion. Kadma (P.W.2) has admitted in cross-examination that he is not a witness to any of the contract to sale. 11. Kishan (P.W.3) has deposed that he had been Vice-Sarpanch of the village concerned and was Patel of the Gram and taxes in relating to the suit house were regularly paid by the plaintiff, but he has admitted that giving and taking of money was not happened before it. Plaintiff's witnesses have deposed that the plaintiff is living in the suit house for more than 15 years. Only house tax receipt dated 2.6.2008 (Ex.P/4) has been filed and no any previous receipt has been filed. This receipt bearing date 2.6.2008 could not indicate payment of house tax by the plaintiff before the year 2008. A certificate given by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khamla (Ex.P.3) was filed, but the signatory of it i.e. Sarpanch was not examined. Some certified copies of papers filed before the Tahsildar of Tahsil, Bhaisdehi prepared by Patwari Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/8 have also been relied by the appellant/plaintiff. Both of these documents have been prepared in the month of July, 2008 and it is mentioned in each of them that there are encroachments of different persons including plaintiff Kaushalya on different part of land bearing Survey No. 129/1 recorded in the name of respondent No. 1 Pyare and others. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P/8 also indicate the persons of house on encroachment portion from July, 2008. For defendants, Pyare (D.W.1), Bheem Rao (D.W.2) and Mahipal (D.W.3) were cross-examined before the Court. Admittedly, registered sale-deed has been executed by respondent No. 1 Pyare in favour of the respondents No. 2 to 5. Plaintiff Kaushalya being a third party to the relating sale-deed, she cannot challenge the above mentioned registered sale-deed. According to the provision of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, title or interest in any immoveable property having value of more than Rs.100/- could be passed only through a registered sale-deed. From house tax receipts and the papers filed by Patwari before Tahsildar only, the payment of house tax appears to be submitted by the appellant/plaintiff from 2008. From house tax receipts and the papers filed by Patwari before Tahsildar only, the payment of house tax appears to be submitted by the appellant/plaintiff from 2008. Thus, this supports the evidence and pleadings of defendants that the plaintiff has encroached in the year 2008. Legally a co-owner can bring a suit for possession against the trespasser. Thus, it appears that the first appellate Court has not committed any illegality in decreeing the counter claim of the respondents No. 2 to 5. 12. Apart the aforesaid, it is apparent that there is concurrent finding of the Courts below holding that the appellant had encroached on disputed area and such finding being based on appreciation of evidence is a finding of fact. Thus, the same could not be interfered by this Court at the stage of second appeal by re-appreciating the evidence under Section 100 of CPC and therefore, this appeal does not have any circumstances to frame any substantial question of law. 13. It is also settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is duty bound to prove his own case to obtain a decree from the Civil Court and on account of the weakness of the defendants, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree, if the plaintiff himself/herself has failed to prove his case in accordance with provision prescribed under the law. It is apparent from the concurrent findings of the Courts below in reference to the appellant's suit that the appellant has failed to prove her case on merits as well as on adverse possession over the disputed part of above mentioned land bearing Survey No. 129/1 of village Khamla for obtaining the declaratory decree, so in such premises also there is no scope in the matter for admission of this appeal. 14. Apart the aforesaid, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat [2014 (3) MPLJ 36], a person who is claiming the property in-dispute on the basis of adverse possession is not having any authority to file the civil suit for declaration, as such, such defence of adverse possession could be taken by the person like appellant in the written statement as a shield when the suit is filed by other side but on the basis of adverse possession, the title suit could not be filed by using such right as a sword. So in such premises also, this appeal does not have any question which requires any consideration at this stage. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there appears no any substance or circumstances in the matter giving rise to any question of law rather than substantial question of law. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. There shall be no order as to the costs.