The admissibility and proof of documentary evidence, as per the provisions of the Evidence Act, are essential in establishing ownership and possession of property.

Nirmal Yadav, J. - This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, vide which the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1989 passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellants was reversed and their suit had been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shobha Ram, predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff-appellants had purchased a plot along with adjoining property vide sale-deed dated 11.11.1895 from Smt. Ralli widow of Nathu Ghumiar and since then, the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest and thereafter the plaintiffs are in possession of the property in question. It is further pleaded that the defendant/respondents in connivance with the local police initiated proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code with regard to a part of property on 10.3.1983. On 9.3.1984, S.D.M. Ropar, without recording any evidence, declared the defendants predecessors-in-interest Rakha Ram and Basant Kaur to be in possession of a part of the property. In pursuance of the said order, Rakha Ram and his wife entered into forcible possession of the property in dispute with the intervention of the local police. After their death, defendants are in possession of the suit property.

3. Suit was contested by the defendant-respondents mainly on the ground that the boundaries of the suit property mentioned in the plaint do not tally with the boundaries as existing at the spot. It is further pleaded that the defendants are the owners in possession of the property and the plaintiffs neither purchased the suit property from Smt. Ralli as stated by them nor plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest have ever been in possession of the suit property. According to the defendants, S.D.M. Ropar found the defendants in possession of the property in the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code

4. The trial Court after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the property in suit as alleged in the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether defendants are in illegal possession of the property in suit ? OPP

3. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit ? OPD

4. Whether suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee ? OPP

5. Relief.

5. The trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.1989. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant-respondents filed appeal, which was accepted by the First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 17.7.19993 against which plaintiff-appellants have come up in the present appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records very carefully.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, at the very out-set argued that Shobha Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellants had purchased the suit property along with adjoining property vide registered sale-deed dated 11.11.1895. Certified copy of the said sale-deed is Ex. P-2 on record. It is argued that the sale-deed being more than 30 years old, therefore, certified copy is admissible in evidence without any formal proof and as such Ex. P-2 is liable to read in evidence as if the said document is original. He further argued that PW-3 Sarwan Singh has proved the execution of the sale-deed. He categorically stated that Shobha Ram purchased the suit property from Ghumiars of the village and since then Shobha Ram and his successors have been in possession of the suit property as owners. One of the plaintiffs, namely, Niranjan Singh PW-4, also corroborated the statement of PW-3 Sarwan Singh. The learned counsel further argued that in the statement Ex. P-3 of Rakha Ram, made in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs, it has been admitted by him that he had taken the help of the police for taking possession of the suit property. He also referred to the statement of D