( 1. ) THIS is defendants appeal against the judgment of reversal by the Appellate Court. This appeal was admitted on 18-3-1991 on following substantial questions of law:-

"whether the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and in not accepting the case of defendants claiming title to the suit land on the basis of sale deed Ex. D-l and Ex. D-2 ?"

( 2. ) FACTS in short of the case are, that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession on the ground that the suit land survey No. 258/1 area 0. 91 of Village Bharola, Tehsil Bandhavgarh belongs to the plaintiffs who are the bhoomiswamis and in possession of the land. In July, 1976 defendants encroached over the western part of the land and damaged crops. Plaintiffs removed the encroachment of defendants from the land. But on 15-11-1977, the defendants forcibly reaped the crop from a part of the land which is shown by words (A), (B), (C), (D) in the plaint. Thereafter again on 27-11-77 defendants tried to dispossess plaintiffs but failed in their attempt. Thereafter defendants are regularly threatening the plaintiff for encroachment hence the suit was filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

( 3. ) DEFENDANTS contested the suit on the ground that out of area 0. 91 acres of the land, 0. 25 decimal land was purchased by father of defendant Balla Gadariya for a consideration of Rs. 100/- from Joharia (father of plaintiff), and also handed over possession of the land. Since then the defendants are in possession of 0. 25 Decimal land. After the death of Joharia his wife Taiya again borrowed Rs. 90/- from defendants and executed a deed in favour of the defendants. The possession of defendants is in the knowledge of plaintiffs. The defendants have acquired right by way of adverse possession but the plaintiffs with the collusion of Patwari, has got entered their possession over the land. The plaintiffs have also damaged the crop of wheat and gram of defendants which was sown by them. With the aforesaid pleadings, defendants contested the suit.

( 4. ) THE Trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence recorded a finding that except 0. 25 decimal land, rest land is in possession of the plaintiffs and they are Bhoomiswamis. So far as 0. 25 decimal land is concerned, the defendants are in possession of the land since 25-5-1954. But the purchase of the land by the father of the defendant No. 1 is not found proved. The Trial Court also found that in the year 1977, defendants did not tried to dispossess the plaintiffs. On these findings the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs challenged Trial Courts judgment and decree in appeal. The Appellate Court found that in the case the Trial Court erred in invoking Section 90 of the Evidence Act because in the case defendants examined witnesses and when the witnesses are examined to prove a document, it is not necessary to raise a presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. The Appellate Court found that there is no evidence in the case to prove the fact that since 1954, the defendants are in possession of the land. No revenue record in this regard has been filed. The finding of the Trial Court is based on document (Ex. D-l) which is not proved. In the year 1977 a dispute arose between the parties and the defendants had reaped the crop of plaintiffs, this fact finds support from the statement of Taiya (P. W. 2), Daddi (P. W. 3) and Sarman (P. W. 4 ). Defendant No. 1 Sugri also supported this contention of the plaintiff to some extent. On these grounds, the Appellate Court found that the cause of action arose on 15-11-1977. The Appellate Court also found that the documents (D-l and D-2) are not proved. Document (D-2) was not found proved even by the Trial Court. The document (Ex. D-l) is unregistered document and the Trial Court believed it invoking Section 90 of the Evidence Act, which is not applicable in the facts of the case. On the afo