A.R. Navkar, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 41 /72, by which he confirmed the decree dated 20-1-1972, in Civil Suit No. 6A /71 passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Vidisha.

The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the respondent for declaration of title on the allegations that the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the suit lands situated in village Mahrookheri, Tahsil Vidisha, on the basis of a Patta dated 7-7-1950, given to him by the then Zamindar Pannalal, now dead. In 1956, the Tahsil served a notice on the appellant requiring the disputed property to be vacated as it was an unoccupied land and it was not used for many years. When the notice was served on the appellant he filed the suit for declaration and injunction before the trial Court. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence on record, dismissed the suit. It held that Ex. P/l (Patta) is not proved and that the papers filed by the plaintiff are not worth believing. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. This is a second appeal.

On behalf of the State, Shri M. C. Jain, Government Advocate, submitted that as both the Courts below have held concurrently against the plaintiff, in second appeal, I should not disturb the finding. Further, he has raised an objection that Pannalal is dead. The witnesses of the alleged Patta are no more and so also the person who has written the document. That being the position, both the Courts correctly held that the Patta on which the plaintiff bases his title is not proved according to law and as such, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below require no interference.

There is no dispute that if there is a concurrent finding affect, then in second appeal, it should not be disturbed lightly. But, if the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has not taken into consideration the correct position of law, then, in my opinion, such finding is not binding on this Court even if it be a concurrent finding of the Courts below. Before proceeding further, I will refer to certain evidence produced in the file. Ex. P/l is the disputed Patta on which the title of the plaintiff is based. The Patta is given by Pannalal to the present appellant. It mentions the survey numbers with respect of which the alleged Patta is given. The name of the scribe is Shambhu Prasad, while the witnesses are one Gopalram and the other is Narayan Prasad. In my opinion, the view of the trial Court is not according to law that the hand-writing of Pannalal cannot be proved except calling either Shambhu Prasad, Gopalram or Narayan Prasad and as all these persons are dead, it cannot be said that the Patta is proved. In such a situation, how a docuraent is to be proved was considered by this Court in Ramibai v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 1981 MPLJ 192 : 19X1 JLJ 828. It has been observed in the said judgment as under:

The deeds in question do not fall into categories of those documents which by law are required to be attested and, therefore, for the proof of these deeds section 68 of the Evidence Act would not apply. It is section 67 which would apply. Section 67 does not lay down any particular mode of proof for proving that a particular writing or signature is in the hand of a particular person. Thus, the signatures may be proved in any one or more of the following raodes:-

(i) By calling a person who signed or wrote a document;

(ii) By calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written;

(iii) By calling hand-writing expert;

(iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written;

(v) By comparing in Court, the disputed signature or hand-writing with some admitted signatu