JUDGMENT : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. Under challenge is the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1997 passed by Addl. District Judge, Rajgarh in Civil Appeal No. 44/94 (Old No. 5/84) whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent (hereafter the defendant) has been partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1984 passed by Munsiff Magistrate, Laxmangarh in Civil Suit No. 93/1979 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant (hereafter the plaintiff) has been modified restraining the defendant-respondent (hereinafter the defendant) from discharging rainwater from the roof on the plaintiff’s adjoining land. 2. Facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant stating that land measuring 33 ft x 13 ft shown in red and green colour on the map annexed with the suit, was purchased from the father of defendant by a registered sale deed dated 4.2.1975 and used by making “Kachcha” construction for residential purpose. Subsequently part of the land shown in red colour in the map annexed to the suit was left open. It was submitted that although the un-constructed portion was in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff, in April, 1979, the defendant forcibly raised construction thereon. A complaint made to the concerned Panchayat Samiti was of no avail. The plaintiff further submitted that under the sale deed dated 04.02.1975, it was agreed that drainage water from roof of plaintiff’s construction over the land purchased would fall over the land of defendant and yet the defendant was now obstructing the plaintiff’s right on that count. In the fact stated and rights asserted the plaintiff prayed that defendant be restrained from obstructing the flow of drainage water from roof of plaintiff’s hutment as marked on the map annexed to the plaint as ABCD, the construction by the defendant over the suit land be demolished, his encroachment be directed to be removed and he be restrained by an injunction from interfering with the right, use and enjoyment by the plaintiff’s of his suit property land including the suit land. 3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the suit and contended that the land sold to the plaintiff did not include the suit land which was his own and of which he was rightly in possession. 3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the suit and contended that the land sold to the plaintiff did not include the suit land which was his own and of which he was rightly in possession. It was denied that any agreement had been entered into with the plaintiff with regard to permitting him to his drain the water from his roof onto the defendant’s adjoining land. Finally the defendant stated the suit was barred by limitation and prayed for its dismissal. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed 4 issues, all of which were decided in favour of plaintiff and the suit decreed vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.1984. Aggrieved, a First Regular Appeal under Section 96 CPC was filed by the defendant before the District Judge, Alwar, which was subsequently transferred to Addl. District Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar for trial. The appellate court vide its impugned judgment dated 11.3.1997 partly allowed the defendant’s appeal and modified the judgment and decree of trial court. The defendant was restrained from obstructing the flow of rain water from roof of the plaintiff’s hutment. The remainder of the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1997 passed by the first appellate court, the plaintiff is now in a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC. 5. Vide order dated 20.09.2006 passed by this Court, this Second Appeal was admitted and the following questions of law framed:- “Whether, the documents Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 which are registered documents can be ignored and not considered by the learned appellant Court saying that it is no proved particularly when the defendant himself has admitted that the land was sold by his father to the plaintiff's?” 6. Mr. G.S. Rathore, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that appellate court failed to consider the plaintiff’s evidence under registered sale deed Ex. 1 and map annexed thereto which was marked Ex.2. A perusal of these documents evinces submitted Mr. G.S. Rathore that suit land was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant. It was further submitted that sale deed Ex.-1 duly registered under the Registration Act and in fact not even denied by the defendant ought to have been read in evidence as was by the trail court. A perusal of these documents evinces submitted Mr. G.S. Rathore that suit land was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant. It was further submitted that sale deed Ex.-1 duly registered under the Registration Act and in fact not even denied by the defendant ought to have been read in evidence as was by the trail court. It was submitted that yet the First Appellate Court without any lawful cause seriously erred in relying upon other evidences of the defendant overlooking the registered sale deed of the plaintiff on record buttressed by the oral evidence in support thereof. It was prayed that the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1997 passed by the first appellate court be quashed and set-aside and the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1994 passed by the trial court be maintained. 7. Per contra, Mr. J.M. Jain, counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the land shown in red colour was not sold to him nor a part of the sale deed dated 04.02.1975 on which his suit was based nor in his ownership and possession. It was in the ownership and possession of the defendant. Mr. J.M. Jain submitted that the sale deed (Ex.1) and map (Ex.2) were of no event as neither were they proved from the testimony of scribe nor by any attesting witness and hence their being marked Ex.1 and 2 was of no event. 8. Perused the impugned judgment dated 11.3.1997. 9. Heard. Considered. 10. The first appellate court has held that even though the sale deed dated 4.2.1975 and the map purportedly annexed thereto were exhibited as Ex.-1 and Ex.-2 yet they were not proved as required in law. I am of the considered view that this view taken by the first appellate court, in respect of which the substantial question of law has been framed in this second appeal on 20.9.2006 was beyond reproach as so indeed the state of law. In the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and Others vs. Yelamarti Satyam Alias Satteya and Others, (1972) 4 SCC 562 , the Apex Court has held that marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of such document by the party relying upon it for which it has to bring in requisite witnesses related to the document admitted in evidence. The said view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Mohindra vs. Anita Beri and Others, wherein it was held that the mere admission of document in evidence neither amounts to its proof nor mere marking of an exhibit on a document dispenses with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. 11. In the instant case, neither the scribe of the sale deed dated 4.2.1975 (Ex.-1) nor witnesses thereof were examined before the trial court and sale deed (Ex.-1) and map (Ex.-2) therefore, which were specifically denied, were not proved. The trial court, however, had proceeded to pass its judgment and decree dated 1.9.1984 in favour of the plaintiff on the strength of the aforesaid documents Ex.-1 and Ex.-2 wrongly treating them as proved. The appellate court has in accordance with the well established legal position, detailed above, held the said documents not to have been proved and rightly so as neither the scribe nor the witnesses to the sale deed were brought in as witnesses to prove their execution. Besides, from a detailed consideration of the evidence before it, the appellate court concluded that the plaintiff had not been able to prove his case of having purchased the portion marked in red in the map annexed to the sale deed, which was the suit land. I am of the considered view that the finding of the first appellate court as the last court of fact on a consideration of the evidence on record therefor cannot be assailed in the appeal confined as it is to the substantial question of law framed. The conclusion of the first appellate court is based on objective consideration and proper appreciation of evidence while dealing at length with the trial court’s error in appreciation of evidence to the plaintiff’s benefit. There is no warrant to interfere therewith. 12. In the circumstances, the question of law framed by this Court in this second appeal deserves to be answered against the plaintiff. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed.