IMPORTANT POINTS
It is not necessary that a registered document be proved by attesting witness(es) particularly when not denied by the executor.
Concurrent finding of fact by courts below should not be interfered u/s 100 CPC.

Sanjay Agrawal, J.—This is Defendants’ Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.40-A/2001 by the Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh whereby the lower Appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.8.2001 passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class-I, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.43-A/1996, has decreed the Plaintiff’s claim for declaration of title and injunction.

2. The undisputed facts are that the Plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration of title and injunction by submitting, inter alia, that they have purchased the property in question described as v] bZ] Q] p] N] n] l] c] x] in plaint Schedule ‘A’ by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 14.5.1979, said to have been executed by one Gopi Chand in favour of their father Sukhiram. It is pleaded that the Defendants have demolished their wall which was constructed in their house marked as bZ] Q and opened the door there mentioned in “d [k” as shown in red colour in the plaint Schedule ‘A’. It is averred further that by raising a wall marked as “Q]x” shown in red colour of plaint Schedule-A, the Defendants have obstructed the Plaintiffs’ right of way in access to their house, giving rise to an instant action, instituted on 8.4.1996 for declaration of title and that for issuance of injunction in a mandatory form for removal of alleged obstruction as committed by them.

3. The Defendants have contested the aforesaid claim by saying that Plaintiffs have not acquired their right, title or interest by way of alleged sale deed and contested further on the ground that they have not obstructed the passage of the Plaintiffs, as alleged by them.

4. The Trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 16.8.2001, by considering the evidence led by the parties, has decreed the Plaintiff’s claim by holding that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the property in question by virtue of the alleged registered deed of sale dated 14.5.1979 (Ex.P-2) executed by one Gopichand in favour of their father Sukhiram. It held further that the Defendants have demolished the wall as alleged by Plaintiffs and have obstructed their way by raising a wall in the portion marked as “Q] x” as shown in red colour in the plaint Schedule-A. As a consequence, a decree for declaration of title and injunction in a mandatory form was granted by directing the Defendants for removal of the alleged obstruction committed by them.

5. The aforesaid finding of the Trial Court has been affirmed further by the lower Appellate Court in an Appeal preferred by the Defendants by its impugned judgment and decree dated 23.10.2002. The lower Appellate Court by relying upon the registered deed of sale dated 14.5.1979 (Ex.P-2) has come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the property in question. The lower Appellate Court has also come to the conclusion by considering the evidence of both the parties that the Defendants have obstructed the Plaintiffs’ alleged right of way. In consequence, the findings as recorded by the Trial Court have been affirmed.

6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid findings, the Defendants have preferred this Appeal on the ground that the Courts below have erred in holding that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the property in question and Defendants have created an obstruction as alleged by the Plaintiffs. Shri Tripathi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that for non-examination of any of the attesting witnesses to the said document (Ex.P-2), it cannot be held that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the property in question on the strength of the alleged sale deed. He further argued that the Courts below have erred in holding that the Defendants have obstructed the Plaintiffs’ right of way to their own house.

7. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellants and have perused the entire record carefully.

8. It is true that