1. The appellant-defendant has called in question the judgment and decree dated 28.1.1991 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Raisen in Civil Regular Appeal No. 3-A/89 reversing the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1989 regarding dismissal of the suit passed by the Civil Judge Class-I Bareli in Civil Original Suit No. 3-A/84.

2. A suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction was filed by respondents with pleadings that one Amrit Lal Dubey was the owner of a dilapidated house situated at Bareli Bazar. This house also had a small passage, so called 'Gali'. One portion of this house adjoining to this 'Gali' was purchased by the appellant vide sale deed dated 18.4.1962 from said Amrit Lal Dubey which is described with the red colour in the map annexed with the sale deed. Subsequent to this transaction the remaining part of this house was purchased by the respondent vide 'sale deed dated 16.7.1972. According to it remaining part of the said house after selling to the appellant was transferred to the respondent. The said 'Gali', subject matter of this suit had remained towards eastern side of the house of respondents and just behind the house of the appellant. The house of Rishiraj and Brij Mohan Chandak is also situated towards the western side of this 'Gali'. As per sale deed of the respondents said 'Gali' is a part of his property on which appellant has made some construction of septic tank by encroaching it. In such circumstances the suit was filed for perpetual injunction to restrain him from further construction and also for mandatory injunction for demolition of construction which had been made by him.

3. In the written statement of the appellant it is contended that the house purchased by him from Amrit Lal Dubey was a separate one and it was not the part of the house as alleged by the respondents. The place of the septic tank is a part of his property on which earlier a latrine was in existence. The aforesaid construction was not objected by father of the respondents in presence of Nazul Inspector and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. In view of the aforesaid pleadings issues were framed by the trial Court. On giving the opportunity to lay the evidence neither of the parties have led the evidence, as such no witnesses have been examined to prove the facts as pleaded by them.

5. According to the judgment of the trial Court the parties prayed to decide the matter on their pleadings and the documents placed on the record. Considering the submissions, on appreciation of the pleadings only the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. In appeal the same has been set aside by decreeing the suit for both the reliefs, the perpetual injunction and the mandatory injunction as prayed by the respondent. The appeal was also allowed only on re-appreciation of the pleadings and documents, hence this appeal was preferred and the same was admitted on 13.3.1991 on following substantial question of law :

"Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that mere on the basis of the pleadings or the documents placed on record, no decree could have been passed unless such documents and the pleadings are proved by examining the relevant witnesses. As per procedure the pleadings are only the intimation to Court and other side regarding their dispute but it has no sanctity of the admissible proof without ocular or oral evidence and the documents and other papers are not admissible unless the same are proved by concerning witnesses as per provision of the Evidence Act. He fairly conceded that the trial Court has also committed a gross error in arriving to the conclusion for dismissal of the suit without any evidence only on appreciation of the pleadings and the aforesaid documents and the same error was committed by the appellate Court in reversing the decree of the trial Court by allowing the