Challenge to the evidence not adduced properly and admitted.

The plaintiff is the appellant in this second Appeal. The suit is for declaration of his title to the suit properly and for consequential injunction or in the alternative for possession. The suit property is a vacant site measuring east to west 10 yards and south to north 23 yards and comprised in S.No.183/1 (part) in Vellur village natham. The plaintiff claimed it under Ex.A-6 sale deed dated 23. 1978 and according to him, his vendor Gopalakrishnan got the said properly under a registered settlement deed dated 21. 1947, the registration copy of which is Ex.A-3, from one Thirumalaiammal. The plaintiff also sought title by adverse possession alternatively. On the other hand, the claim of the defendant/respondents is that the property being a natham properly, vested with the Government and defendants were alone in possession of the property. Further, according to the defendants, the alleged settlement by Thirumalai Ammal could not be true and neither Thirumalaiammal, nor Gopalakrishnan was in possession of the suit property and that the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff was also invalid.

2. The trial court decreed the suit for declaration -on the basis of the abovesaid title deeds Ex.A-3 and A-6 and holding that the defendants were in possession of the suit property on the date of suit, granted decree for possession. But, on appeal, the first appellate court has dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved the abovesaid Ex.A-3 document, he having not examined any attestor to the said document. The lower appellate court also held that since Ex.A-3 is only a registration copy of the original deed, Sec.90 of the Evidence Act would not come to the rescue of the plaintiff, on the footing that the document in question was more than 30years old. Further, while the trial court has held that item No.19 in Ex.A-3 is the suit property, the lower appellate court has reversed that finding by saying that in item 19 in Ex.A-3, the western boundary is described as Perumal Iyengar’s vacant site and the eastern boundary is described as Yoganandasami madam, but that "the abovesaid boundary is not in existence now". On that reasoning, the lower appellate court has held that the property described as item No.19 of Ex.A-3, does not relate to the suit property.

3. Aggrieved by the said decision of the first appellate court, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the lower appellate court erred in holding that Ex.A-3 has not been proved since no attestor therein has been examined. According to him, there is no specific denial by the defendants regarding the execution of Ex.A-3. All that has been pleaded in the written statement regarding Ex.A-3 is only as follows:

"The further contention that Thirumalai Ammal executed a registered settlement deed in favour of one Gopalakrishna Iyer on 21. 1947 cannot be true. The plaintiff should prove the truth and validity of the alleged Settlement Deed dated 21. 1947. The Settlement deed even if true cannot convey any title in favour of the Donee as the donor herself had no title, right, or interest in the suit property."

According to the said counsel, in view of this pleading, there is no scope for the application of Sec.68 of the Evidence Act. Sec.68 of the Evidence Act runs as follows:

"68. Proof of Execution of Document Required by Law to be attested. If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16of 1908), unless its execution b