JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2003 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.11-A/2003 reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.68-A/2001 by IX Civil Judge Class I, Jabalpur whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction in respect of Khasra No.40/3 and 40/4 situated at village Manegaon Tehsil and District Jabalpur has been dismissed. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the original plaintiff Budhua @ Teerath Prasad filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.40/3 area 0.032 hectare and Khasra No.40/4 area 0.162 hectare situated at village Manegaon Tehsil and District Jabalpur and the defendants have no right over the same. A permanent injunction was also sought that the defendants should not interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The aforesaid suit was filed on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the property in dispute and the defendants are trying to encroach upon the said property by dislodging the possession of the plaintiff, hence a notice was also issued to the defendants on 06.10.1995 and subsequently the civil suit was filed. 3. After the death of original plaintiff Budhua @ Teerath Prasad, the legal representatives of Budhua also amended the plaint to the effect that their father Budhua had never execute the sale deed on 05.10.1966 and in the revenue records the name of the plaintiff has continued to be reflected. It is further pleaded that the alleged purchaser of the property Daulat Ram Grover never existed and no sale deed was executed in his favour by the plaintiff and this fact was also suppressed by the defendants in their earlier written statement but subsequently introduced by way of amendment in their pleadings. Thus it was stated that the defendants have no claim over the suit property and the plaintiff was the sole owner of the suit land. 4. Thus it was stated that the defendants have no claim over the suit property and the plaintiff was the sole owner of the suit land. 4. The learned Judge of the Civil Court after recording the evidence has dismissed the suit vide its judgment dated 21.03.2002 and in the appeal against the aforesaid judgment, the learned V Additional District Judge Jabalpur has reversed the aforesaid judgment and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed holding that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land Survey No.40/3 and 40/4 situated in village Manegaon District Jabalpur and the defendant No.1 Dhiraj Jaggi (the appellant herein) was restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. 5. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on 27.1.2004 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court that sale deed was not executed in favour of the appellant by Buddha, is perverse as the sale deed was more than 30 years old and was duly registered?” 6. Counsel for the appellant/defendant has submitted that the defendant is the owner of the property as his father had purchased the same through Daulat Ram Grover who in turn had purchased the same from the original plaintiff Budhua through a registered sale deed. It is further submitted that the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the sale deed in itself was 30 years’ old and was duly executed before the Registrar (Property). It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly held that although the plaintiffs are in possession of the property but their possession was held to be unlawful and as such no illegality was committed by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the civil suit of the plaintiffs. 7. Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment and decree and has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree as the original sale deed was never produced in the Court and even its certified copy was not proved in accordance with law. It is submitted that the possession has rightly been held to be of the plaintiffs by the learned lower appellate court. It is submitted that the possession has rightly been held to be of the plaintiffs by the learned lower appellate court. Thus it is submitted that no substantial question of law is made out in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From the record, this Court finds that the alleged sale deed was executed by the original plaintiff Budhua @ Teerath Prasad in favour of Daulat Ram Grover vide Ex. D/2 dated 05.10.1966 admittedly it is 30 years old. The aforesaid document Ex. D/2 is actually the certified copy of the sale deed and not the sale deed itself which was never produced in the Court, thus, the conditions enumerated under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be said to be satisfied hence the presumption as provided under Section 90 cannot be said to be available in the present case. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court, although has held that otherwise the validity of the said document which is 30 years old has to be presumed but other circumstances have also to be looked into while deciding upon the validity of such document and has also taken note of the fact that even after the execution of the sale deed, the purchaser Daulat Ram Grover did not get his name mutated in the revenue record for a long period of time and, in fact, the information regarding the execution of sale deed was not even disclosed till the death of original plaintiff Budhua and this information was also not provided to Budhua prior to filing of the plaint when the notice was sent by him to the defendant. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has also held that the record keeper of the Registrar (Properties) has stated that he is not acquainted with the signatures of Budhua and in the absence of examination of other witnesses to the sale deed it cannot be said to be a valid sale deed and apart from that even Daulat Ram Grover has not been examined by the defendant in support of the execution of the sale deed. 10. 10. After perusing the record, this Court also finds that although there is a general presumption of genuineness of a document which is 30 years old but it is intriguing that the factum of execution of sale deed was not brought to the notice of the plaintiff soon after the notice dated 06.10.1995 was sent by Budhua before filing of the plaint on 01.02.1996 and subsequently during the time when the original plaintiff Budhua was alive during the proceedings of the suit as he died on 05.06.1997 and the amendment carried out in the written statement clearly discloses that the amendment regarding the sale deed was first time made on 09.11.2001 only whereas the original written statement was filed on 21.11.2000 which clearly shows the surreptitious manner in which the defendant has tried to set up his defense in the case In view of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has rightly held that the sale deed cannot be relied upon in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. As a result, the substantial question of law is answered in negative and the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.