purchaser of property i.e. Shyam Lal, which had been executed in his favour by the erstwhile owner Ram Kishan, were proved by PW4 Balraj Kaushik Ahlmad from the Court of learned ACMM, where these documents had been filed in the Criminal Case titled State vs. Ram Prakash . The certified copies were compared with the originals and the documents were so exhibited as Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/4. The Plaintiff, however, had only the photocopies of the title documents handed over by the original owners i.e. Satish Kumar and Krishan Kumar to Ram Krishan which were exhibited as GPA Mark X1/D1, Agreement to Sell Mark X1/D2 and Affidavit as Mark X1/D3. 31. The learned Civil Judge noted that the set of documents executed by the original Bhumidars in favor of Krishan Kumar were not proved by any cogent evidence and being the photocopies, the same could not have been considered especially when the alleged co-owner Satish Kumar had denied executing these documents. The first set of Agreement to Sell, etc. Mark X1/D1 to Mark X1/D3 were thus, not proved to establish the transfer of the Plot to Krishan Kumar and thereafter, to subsequent Purchasers. 32. While there was a reference to the sale documents, but that was not the basis for denying Injunction to the Plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge, in fact referred to ocular evidence and the Report of the Local commissioner, to conclude that the Plaintiff was never in possession of the Suit property. 33. The first such document was the Report of the Local Commissioner Ex.DW1/P1 dated 30.09.1999 who had observed that since it was a vacant plot; it was not possible to state who was in possession. However, it was noted in the Report of the Local Commissioner that the walls of the two sides were of the adjoining plots while the wall on the other two (opposite) sides was recently constructed. Also, the Local Commissioner noted that the
