1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.142/2010 Sau. Suman Subhash Wankhede & one another ..vs.. Haridas Tulshiramji Ghaode - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 13, 2009 Heard Shri Motghare, learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for removal of encroachment and possession of a piece of land belonging to the plaintiff. Since the defendants obstructed plaintiff on 21.12.2005 while the plaintiff was erecting the fencing to his property, the suit came to be instituted as it was found that the defendants had encroached upon the land belong to the plaintiff. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that they were in possession of the property for the last 20 years with the consent of the original owner – Shri Teni. It was pleaded that the owner Shri Teni had agreed to sell the suit land in her favour. He sought for dismissal of the suit. The trial and the appellate court on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that he was the owner of the suit land and had also proved that the defendants had encroached on the same. The court held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of Mr. Teni as a necessary party. The court, held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of possession and removal of encroachment. 2 The findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The plaintiff had produced a registered sale deed on record to prove h is ownership over the suit land. The submission made on behalf of the appellants that it was necessary for the plaintiffs to have examined Shri Teni or an attesting witness to prove the contents of the sale deed, is liable to be rejected as the provisions of section 68 of the Evidence Act 1872 clearly stipulate that it would not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. In fact since the defendants had claimed that they had agreed to purchase the suit property from Shri Teni, they could have examined Shri Teni from whom the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed. The findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of material evidence on record and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP