The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of Section 90 of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of old documents and the high standard of proof required for establishing adverse possession.

N.K. Agarwal, J.

1. Instant second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 6-4-1994 passed by the Vlth Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/93 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 3-8-1980 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 31-A/77 has been dismissed.

2. The instant second appeal was admitted for hearing by this Court on 14-7-1994 on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2 receipts are admissible in evidence under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, so as to confer title upon the Plaintiffs?

(ii) Whether the Plaintiffs have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession?

Facts of the case in brief are as under:

3. Following genelogical tree explains the relationship between the parties:

4. According to the Plaintiffs, Lagan Sai was original holder of 10.15 acres of agricultural land at mouja Haranmundi, P.C. No. 43, R.I. Circle Pali, Tehsil Katghora, District Bilaspur. Upon his death, his three sons inherited his estate including the land aforesaid. According to the Plaintiffs, Bhursu and Baba by receipts dated 10-4-1924 and 14-4-1924 (Exs. P-l and P-2) relinquished their interest in favour of their brother Dallu, fastened with their liability to repay their loan as mentioned therein. Dallu and after his death, his three sons have been in possession since then, though khata being joint.

Taking advantage of entries in Khata, Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed an application claiming partition under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (briefly, 'the Code'), allowed by the Tehsildar by order dated 18-3-1977. Due to the above, the Plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration of their title over the suit land. In alternative, the Plaintiffs claimed title by prescription for the receipts Exs. P-l and P-2 of 1924 were acted upon and they were in possession ever since 1924.

5. By judgment dated 3-8-1980, the trial Court dismissed the suit finding inter alia:

(i) Parties were in joint possession over the suit land though they had been claiming their exclusive possession;

(ii) Receipts Exs. P-l and P-2 did not confer title upon Dallu being unregistered though were admissible for collateral purposes; and

(iii) The Plaintiffs have not prescribed title by adverse possession.

6. Thereagainst, first appeal preferred was also dismissed holding:

(i) Receipts Exs. P-l and P-2 being suspicious cannot be believed, no presumption can be drawn under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, (briefly, 'the Act') with regard to its due execution;

(ii) Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land ever since 1943;

(iii) Plaintiffs have not prescribed title by adverse possession.

7. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Appellant relying upon the judgment of High Court of Oudh in case of Mahipal Singh v. Sarjoo Prasad AIR 1926 Oudh 141 would submit, the Plaintiffs have acquired title of the suit land under unregistered relinquishment deed Exs. P-l and P-2 executed by late Dallu in the year 1924 and continued to remain in possession ever since 1924 pursuant to above deeds and, therefore, although the documents relating to their title may be invalid for want of registration or on any other ground, yet possession having lasted for more than 12 years, their title became unassailable. The first appellate court had also found Plaintiffs in exclusive possession ever since 1943 and, therefore, learned both the Courts below have erred in dismissing Plaintiffs' suit.

8. On the other hand, Shri H.S. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents would submit, documents Exs. P-l and P-2 cannot be relied upon; the first appellate court had already held in para 10 of its judgment the documents Exs. P-l and P-2 suspicious and no presumption can be drawn regarding their due execution under Section 90 of the Act. He would further submit, during partition proceedings, Plaintiffs have adm