The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the best evidence principle and the exclusion of oral evidence for proving the contents of documents under Sec. 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard fnally with the consent of the parties, at admission stage.

2. The respondent/original plaintiff (hereinafter called as 'Sanstha') has instituted a civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.29 of 2018 in the Court of Civil Judge J.D. Khultabad against the petitioners herein for a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land bearing gat no.767 admeasuring 4 Hector 60R to the extent of 65R land situated at village Bajar Sawangi, Tq. Khultabad, District Aurangabad. The respondent Sanshta/original plaintiff has purchased the suit land from petitioner no.1 Sakhahari Dagadu Ghule (original defendant no.1) through a registered sale deed dtd. 16/1/2009. Initially, the respondent/original plaintiff has purchased 0Hector 70R land from the petitioner no.1 Sakhahari Ghule out of the land gat no.767 alongwith third share in the water of the well. However, it was revealed that mistakenly land was mentioned as 70R instead of 65R. Accordingly, correction deed was executed on 26/8/2009 and four boundaries of the land admeasuring 65 R of land are the same as mentioned in the original sale-deed. It is clarifed in the correction- deed that other details of the original sale-deed are true and correct and no change is made with respect to those particulars. Thereafter, mutation entries with respect to the sale-deed dtd. 16/1/2009 as well as correction deed dtd. 26/8/2009 are duly recorded in the 7/12 extract of the land gat no.767. The respondent was enjoying the suit property peacefully since the date of purchase without any obstruction or interference.

3. It is the case of the respondent/original plaintiff that with oblique intention defendant no.1 Sakhahari in collusion with defendant nos.2 to 4 prepared a false and fabricated document of Vatanipatra on a stamp of Rs.100.00 and thereby partitioned 13R land amongst defendant nos.2 Ramdas and 4 Prabhakar. It reveals from the said Vatnipatra that defendant no.1 Sakhahari Ghule has given 6 1/2 R land each to defendant Ramdas and defendant Prabhakar and as such 0H 13 R land pretended to have been allotted to them by way of said 'Vatanipatra'. It is not a registered document. Thereafter, said defendants have sold their said share in favour of defendant no.5 by executing a registered sale- deed dtd. 20/4/2018. According to the respondent/plaintiff, defendants tried to encroach the land owned and possessed by the respondent on the basis of false and fabricated Vatanipatra, so also the sale-deed dtd. 20/4/2018. The respondent, thus constrained to institute the suit for a decree of perpetual injunction.

4. The petitioners/original defendants appeared in the suit and resisted it by fling written statement as well as the Counter-claim. Even, the petitioners/original defendant no.5 has also fled an application seeking temporary injunction in his counter-claim, belatedly. According to the petitioners/defendants, petitioner no.1- Sakhahari was intending to sell 50R of land out of gat no.767. However, respondent/plaintiff got executed the sale-deed for the area admeasuring 70R from petitioner no.1-Sakhahari under the pretext that respondent/Sanstha requires more area on document for the purpose of getting grants for construction of the building from the Government. Petitioner no.1/original defendant no.1 believed the words of the respondent and executed registered sale-deed of the area admeasuring 70R, but, in fact, possession of 50R land was given to the respondent-Sanstha. Further, at the instance of the respondent/plaintiff correction deed has been executed. According to the petitioners/defendants on 11/12/2009 petitioner no.1 has executed partition-deed of the land admeasuring 13R land towards Southern-East corner of the land gat no.767 in favour of the petitioner nos.2 and 4 and thereafter petitioner no.4 has executed partition deed of the area admeasuring 6 1/2 R of the suit land in favour of his son petitioner no.3. On the basis of the said partition deed dtd. 11/12/2009 and