The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of producing the original lease deed as the best evidence to establish the right to give secondary evidence and the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish ownership over the disputed land.

R.B. Dixit, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 15-2-1995 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2-A/94 by Fifth Additional Judge to District Judge, Gwalior, whereby decree and judgment of Ninth Civil Judge Second Class, Gwalior, passed in Civil Suit No. 228A/94 was confirmed, the defendant-appellant has come up in appeal praying for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a civil suit against the appellant seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant from making any interference in the suit plot allegedly obtained by him on 30 years' lease from the Government of Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Kshetron Ke Bhumiheen Vyakti. (pattadhriti Ka Pradan Kiya Jana Adhikaron) Adhiniyam, 1984. According to the plaint averment, plaintiff was granted patta of a plot measuring 8.50 x 6.50 meters whereon he had constructed a Pator and Chhapar over the said plot. The defendant's house is situated in the north of the suit plot in the Shabad Pratan Ashram and defendant had raised a wall on the suit land causing interference in possession of the plaintiff.

3. The resume of the written statement was that plaintiff is in possession of the suit plot and no lease was granted to him by the Govt. of M.P. further alleging that the patta in question is a vague deed having no record of its being granted to the plaintiff by the concerned department. The portion of land where defendant's house opens towards the suit land is being used for her passage. The door, window and passage had existed for more than 30 years.

4. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the plaintiffs suit and restrained defendant-appellant permanently from making any interference in plaintiff enjoyment of the suit plot. In appeal, the decree of the trial Court was also confirmed as referred hereinabove.

5. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

A. "Whether on failure to produce original deed of lease, Courts below were right in holding that plaintiff has proved lease in his favour from the Govt. ?

B. Whether in the absence of original lease deed photocopy can be exhibited and on the basis of photocopy the plaintiffs suit can be decreed ?"

6. Plaintiff Gambhira (P.W. 1) has produced the photocopy (Ex. P-l) of the lease deed alleged to have been granted by the State Govt. on 22-4-84 and he has further produced the photocopy of receipt (Ex. P-2) in respect of the tax of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, wherein S.N. of the lease has also been mentioned. He has not shown original lease (patta) in the Court. Tax Collector of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, Om Prakash Shivhare (P.W. 2) has proved realisation of annual rent from the plaintiff in respect of Jhuggi Jhopdi. However, he himself had never realised any tax. He has simply proved entries of a register in respect of the rent.

7. Witness Narayan Prasad (P.W. 3) had also received patta alongwith the plaintiff, but he could not ascribe the area, which was allotted to him. According to him, the dispute started when defendant tried to break open boundary of Shabd Pratap Ashram situated near the house of the plaintiff. It means that there is a dispute of boundaries between the parties.

8. Defendant Sushma (D.W. 1) had admitted that the plaintiff is residing on the disputed plot for the last 15-20 years. Ashish Rajput (D.W. 2) enquired about patta of the plaintiff from the Nazul Department, but he was told that no patta was granted to the plaintiff. Ramesh Singh (D.W. 3) had applied to get the certified copy of patta, if granted to the plaintiff through an application (Ex. D-l); and he was given a certificate (Ex. D-2) to the effect that plaintiff had been granted no patta of which a copy was sought for.

9. It has been contended for the learned counsel of the appellant-defendant that where the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession on the basis of the alleged lease deed granted to him, he cannot be allow