JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal under section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8-A/2011 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2011 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Karera, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 97-A/2009. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for declaration of title and possession pleading inter alia that survey No. 1130 area 1.88 hectare situated in village Dhand, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri is the property in dispute. The old number of disputed property was 310/2 and 311/4 area 1.839 hectares. During bandobast both the survey numbers were consolidated and one survey No. 1130 area 1.88 hectares was made. The plaintiff/respondent along with other survey numbers had purchased the property in dispute from one Smt. Baro widow of Panjana by registered sale deed dated 4.7.1969 and on the said date itself the possession of the property in dispute was also given to the plaintiff/respondent. After the sale of her property in dispute, no right or title were left with the seller Smt. Baro. On the basis of the sale deed, the plaintiff/respondent filed an application for mutation of his name. However, the name of the plaintiff/respondent was mutated in respect of some of the land which was sold to the plaintiff/respondent by registered sale deed dated 4.7.1969 and the plaintiff/respondent under an impression that his name has been mutated in respect of entire land therefore he did not bother to check the record. It was pleaded that the father of the appellants was a clever person and by misrepresenting somehow, he convinced Smt. Baro to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the disputed property in favour of the appellants/defendants and consequently a registered sale deed was executed. However, on the date of the registration of the sale deed in favour of the appellants/defendants neither the seller Smt. Baro had any right or title to sell the land nor any right or title stood transferred in favour of the appellants. The appellants/defendants in connivance of the revenue authorities get their names mutated in the revenue record in a clandestine manner. However, the plaintiff/respondent was not aware of such mutation. The appellants/defendants in connivance of the revenue authorities get their names mutated in the revenue record in a clandestine manner. However, the plaintiff/respondent was not aware of such mutation. Since the sale deed was executed by Smt. Baro without any title or right, therefore, no right or title had accrued in favour of the appellants/defendants. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent was in continuous possession of the property in dispute. On 15.9.2008, the appellants came on the spot and informed that they have purchased the property from Smt. Baro and have got their names mutated and started disputing the title of the plaintiff/respondent. When the plaintiff/respondent enquired from Tahsil Karera, then he was told by the Patwari that the names of the appellants/defendants are recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent filed an application under sections 115 and 116 of Land Revenue Code before the Court of Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri. The said proceedings was decided by the Naib Tahsildar by order dated 25.4.2009 and held that the parties should get their title declared from the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. On the next date i.e. 26.4.2009, the plaintiff/respondent was forcibly dispossessed by the appellants and thus the plaintiff/respondent is also entitled for decree of possession apart from mesne profit. 3. The appellants filed their written statement and accepted that the old number of survey No. 1130 area 1.88 hectares was 310/2 and 311/4. However, it was denied that Smt. Baro had sold the disputed property by registered sale deed dated 4.7.1969. It was pleaded that in fact the plaintiff/respondent had never purchased survey No. 310/2 and 311/4 from Smt. Baro nor any such sale deed was executed by Smt. Baro on 4.7.1969. In fact the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 is a forged and created document by impersonating some other lady in place of Smt. Baro. No photograph of the seller was affixed on the forged sale deed. It was further pleaded that on 4.7.1969 Smt. Baro was not the Bhumiswami because the land originally belonged to her husband Panjana S/o Gyasi and since he was alive on the date of the execution of the sale deed, therefore, Panjana was the Bhumiswami of the disputed property and during life time of Panjana, Smt. Baro had no right to title to alienate the property. It was further pleaded that a forged and concocted sale deed dated 4.7.1969 has been executed by showing the payment of insufficient consideration amount. It was further pleaded that even the possession of the disputed land was not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent. The respondent is a clever person and on the basis of the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 he had got his name mutated on the remaining land belonging to Smt. Baro and during the lifetime of Smt. Baro he did not file any application for mutation of his name on the disputed land. It was further pleaded that after the death of Panjana, the name of Smt. Baro was mutated in the year 1975-76 and on 7.7.1992 Smt. Baro has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellants/defendants after receiving the consideration amount of Rs. 34,500/-. On the said sale deed photograph of Smt. Baro was also affixed which has been duly attested by the Registrar. The appellants/defendants have also constructed a well in the year 1994-95 which is being used for irrigation purposes. The sale deed dated 7.7.1992 is a valid sale deed because on the said date, Smt. Baro had become the Bhumiswami and had right to alienate the same. It was again specifically pleaded that on 4.7.1969 Smt. Baro was not the Bhumiswami but her husband Panjana was the Bhumiswami. The application filed by the plaintiff/respondent for correction of revenue revenue record under sections 115 and 116 of M.P. Land Revenue Code has already been rejected by the Naib Tahsildar. It was also denied that after the rejection of the said application, the appellants had forcibly take possession of the land in dispute but it was pleaded that the appellants/defendants are in open possession of the land in dispute from 7.7.1992 itself and no steps were taken by the plaintiff/respondent for possession. The sale deed dated 4.7.1969 was executed by showing insufficient consideration amount and all other pleadings were denied. 4. The trial Court after recording evidence, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 28.2.2011 passed in Civil Suit No. 97- A/2009. 5. The sale deed dated 4.7.1969 was executed by showing insufficient consideration amount and all other pleadings were denied. 4. The trial Court after recording evidence, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 28.2.2011 passed in Civil Suit No. 97- A/2009. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent filed an appeal which has been allowed by judgment and decree dated 4.8.2011 and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been set aside and the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and it was held that the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of survey No. 1130 area 1.88 hectares situated in village Dhand, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri and he is also entitled to get the possession of the said land from the appellants and it was also decreed that the sale deed dated 7.7.1992 executed in favour of the appellants is null and void and, accordingly, the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue record. 6. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that in fact Panjana, the husband of the seller Smt. Baro was the owner and after his death, the name of Smt. Baro was mutated in the revenue record in the year 1975-76 and only thereafter Smt. Baro became the owner of the land in dispute and thus it is clear that on the date of the execution of the sale deed i.e. 4.7.1969, Smt. Baro was not the Bhumiswami of the land in question because of the fact that her husband Panjana was alive and, therefore, she had no authority to execute the sale deed. It is further submitted that in fact the sale deed was never executed by Smt. Baro and it was a forged and fabricated document. The plaintiff/respondent has stated that the land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 5000/-, out of which Rs. 4800/- were paid while they were on the way to the Office of Sub Registrar and an amount of Rs. 200/- was paid in the Office of Sub Registrar. However, in the sale deed dated 4.7.1969, it is mentioned that the land in question was sold by Smt. Baro for a consideration of Rs. 200/- only. 4800/- were paid while they were on the way to the Office of Sub Registrar and an amount of Rs. 200/- was paid in the Office of Sub Registrar. However, in the sale deed dated 4.7.1969, it is mentioned that the land in question was sold by Smt. Baro for a consideration of Rs. 200/- only. It is further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff had filed an application under section 65 of Evidence Act seeking permission to lead secondary evidence on the ground that he is not in possession of the original copy of the sale deed whereas Darua (PW3) has specifically stated that the respondent/plaintiff was having the copy of the sale deed which clearly shows that the plaintiff was all the time making false statements. It is further submitted that Darua (PW3) has stated that the land in question was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- whereas according to the plaintiff, Dayaram (PW2) has purchased the property for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- and in the sale deed it is mentioned that the property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 200/- only. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the sale deed was executed by Smt. Baro on 4.7.1969. It is further submitted that if the plaintiff had purchased the property from Smt. Baro, then there was no reason for him for not getting the name mutated in the revenue record and thus it is clear that in fact the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 executed in favour of the plaintiff Dayaram was nothing but either a sham document or a created or a concocted document. It is further submitted that merely because the document on which reliance has been placed is more than 30 years old would not ipso facto mean that it stood proved in the eye of law and the party relying on the said document is still liable to prove the same and the presumption under section 90 of the Evidence Act is merely discretionary in nature. 7. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (dead) through his legal representatives v. Shanti Devi and ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 601 and the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhsen and Anr. 7. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (dead) through his legal representatives v. Shanti Devi and ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 601 and the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhsen and Anr. v. Kemtaiya and ors. reported in 2004 (4) MPLJ 294 and in the case of Ratanlal v. Kishanlal and ors. reported in 2012 (1) MPLJ 120 and in the case of Jai Narayan Durga Prasad v. Satyanarayan alias Dhonbabu and ors. reported in 1991 MPLJ 768 . 8. It is further submitted that it is well established principle of law that in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the burden is on the plaintiff and he has to establish his case irrespective of the fact that whether the defendants have succeeded in establishing their case or not. The plaintiff must stand on own leg and he cannot take advantage of weakness of defendants. 9. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that after the death of Panjana, Smt. Baro became the owner of the land in dispute and Panjana had died about five years prior to the date of the execution of the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 and thus it is incorrect to say that Panjana was alive on 4.7.1969. In the sale deed also Smt. Baro was described as widow of Panjana which clearly shows that Panjana was already dead. It is further submitted that immediately after the execution of the sale deed, the possession of the land in dispute was handed over to the respondent/plaintiff and at a later stage he was dispossessed by the defendants/appellants and, therefore, a prayer was also made for recovery of the possession. It is further submitted that when a suit is filed for seeking relief to recover the possession, then it necessarily involves adjudication of title and adjudication of possession. If title of defendants is proved, then his possession has to be proved. It is further submitted that after the execution of the sale deed in his favour, the respondent filed an application for mutation of his name and his name was mutated in respect of some of the survey numbers which were sold by Smt. Baro. If title of defendants is proved, then his possession has to be proved. It is further submitted that after the execution of the sale deed in his favour, the respondent filed an application for mutation of his name and his name was mutated in respect of some of the survey numbers which were sold by Smt. Baro. However, since the name of Smt. Baro was not mutated in respect of the land in dispute, therefore, the name of the plaintiff could not be recorded. However, the plaintiff under a bonafide impression that his name has been recorded in all the survey numbers and therefore did not verify from the revenue records and since he was continuously in possession of the land in dispute without any obstruction by anybody, therefore he had no reason to doubt that whether his name has been recorded in respect of the land in dispute or not. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Maria Margarida Sequrira Fernandes and ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370 . 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : "Whether the learned appellate Court erred in holding that the document dated 4.7.1969 P-1 was proved by the plaintiff and without proving the execution of the sale deed, grant of decree by the learned appellate Court is wrong and liable to be set aside". 12. The preliminary question for consideration is that whether Smt. Baro was the owner of the land in dispute on 4.7.1969 or not and when her husband Panjana died ? 13. None of the parties have specifically pleaded and proved that on what date Panjana had expired. On the contrary, Ravi (DW1) has denied in paragraph 13 of his cross-examination that Panjana had expired about 4 to 5 years prior to the year 1969 and claimed that Panjana had expired in the year 1975-76. However, he further admitted that he has not filed any document to show that Panjana had expired in the year 1975-76 and he further clarified that since the name of Smt. Baro was mutated in the revenue record in the year 1975-76, therefore, the defendants/appellants had claimed that he had expired in the year 1975-76. However, he further admitted that he has not filed any document to show that Panjana had expired in the year 1975-76 and he further clarified that since the name of Smt. Baro was mutated in the revenue record in the year 1975-76, therefore, the defendants/appellants had claimed that he had expired in the year 1975-76. Even the respondent/plaintiff has not filed any document to show that on what date Panjana had expired. However, this controversy can be resolved in the light of Khasra Panchshala of year 1969 Ex.P/8. It is clear from this document that the name of Panjana was recorded in respect of survey No. 310/2 and 311/4 and the name of Smt. Baro was recorded in respect of survey No. 316/1, 316/2 and 316/3. However, Smt. Baro was described as widow of Panjana. Thus it is clear that Panjana was already dead in the year 1969. Therefore, it is clear from Khasra Panchshala Ex.P/8 that although the name of Panjana continued in the revenue record in respect of survey No. 310/2 and 311/4 (disputed property) but by that time he was already dead and the name of Smt. Baro was recorded in respect of these lands in the year 1975-76. Thus the contention of the plaintiff/respondent that Panjana had already expired about 5 to 6 years prior to the execution of the sale deed dated 9.7.1969 is more plausible and, therefore, it is held that since on the date of the execution of the sale deed dated 4.7.1989 Ex.P1/C, Panjana was already dead, therefore, Smt. Baro had already acquired her title in the disputed property by way of succession. 14. It is next contended by the counsel for the appellants that in fact the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 Ex.P1/C was nothing but a concocted, created or sham document. Thus the burden is on him to prove the same. Except making a submission, no evidence has been led by the appellants to prove that the document in question i.e. sale deed dated 4.7.1969 Ex.P1/C was a sham, concocted or created document. 15. Thus the burden is on him to prove the same. Except making a submission, no evidence has been led by the appellants to prove that the document in question i.e. sale deed dated 4.7.1969 Ex.P1/C was a sham, concocted or created document. 15. Section 90 of the Evidence Act reads as under : "90 Presumption as to documents thirty years old.-Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Explanation.-Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. This Explanation applies also to section 81." 16. Since the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 Ex.P-1 was more than 30 years old document, then subject to the satisfaction of other requirements of section 90 of Evidence Act, the Court can draw a presumption in favour of the said document. In the present case, the plaintiff had claimed that the original copy of sale deed dated 4.7.1969 Ex.P-1 is not available, therefore, he filed an application under section 65 of Evidence Act which was allowed and the plaintiff was permitted to lead secondary evidence. In order to prove the sale deed dated 4.7.1969, the plaintiff has examined Santosh Kumar Khare (PW1) who was working in the office of Sub Registrar, Karera, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri. Santosh Kumar Khare (PW1) brought the original record from the office of Sub Registrar and stated that the sale deed Ex.P-1 was executed and registered on 4.7.1969 and, accordingly, the certified copy the sale deed filed by the plaintiff was exhibited as Ex.P1/C. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 Ex.P1/C bears that the thumb impression of Smt. Baro as well as the signatures of the attesting witnesses. The sale deeds are always executed in two copies and each are originally signed by the parties. One copy printed on the stamp paper is handed over to the purchaser of the property whereas another copy bearing original thumb impression and signatures of the parties is retained in the office of Sub Registrar. Since both the documents are originally signed by the parties to the transaction, therefore, both the documents are to be treated as a primary evidence. Since the photocopy filed by the plaintiff was got proved by him by summoning the original record from the Office of Sub Registrar Karera, District Shivpuri and the photocopy of the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 was exhibited as Ex.P-1 after its due comparison with the original record, thus it is clear that the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 was properly exhibited as Ex.P1/C. Even otherwise no objection was raised by the appellants at the time when it was being exhibited, therefore, it is held that the respondent/plaintiff has proved the execution of the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 Ex.P1/C in accordance with law. 17. It is clear from the provisions of section 90 of the Evidence Act that once a document is produced from proper custody which is more than 30 years old, then the attestation and execution of the same can be presumed. In the present case, the original record from the office of Sub Registrar was summoned to prove the certified copy of the sale deed dated 4.7.1969, therefore, the certified copy was got compared with a document which was produced from the proper custody. Thus a presumption can be drawn with regard to the genuineness as well as the execution and attestation of the sale deed dated 4.7.1969. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellate Court did not commit any mistake in holding that the sale deed dated 4.7.1969 was duly executed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. 18. It is the case of the defendants that Panjana was alive till 1975- 76 whereas it has already been established that Panjana was already dead in the year 1969. It is not the case of the defendants that Smt. Baro remained in possession of the land in dispute till the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendants/appellants. It is the case of the defendants that Panjana was alive till 1975- 76 whereas it has already been established that Panjana was already dead in the year 1969. It is not the case of the defendants that Smt. Baro remained in possession of the land in dispute till the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendants/appellants. Thus the delivery of possession to the plaintiff after the execution of the sale deed in his favour on 4.7.1969 Ex.P-1 can be presumed. Under these circum-stances, it is held that the plaintiff/respondent was dispossessed by the appellants/defendants after the execution of the sale deed in their favour as well as after the rejection of the application filed by the plaintiff for correction of the revenue record. 19. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the substantial question of law framed in the present case has to be answered against the appellants. 20. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8-A/2011 is hereby affirmed. 21. Resultantly the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.