Further, during the course of cross-examination, the plaintiffs have confronted the photographs to prove the existence of the building in the suit schedule property. Further, it is contended that the aforesaid lands were acquired by BDA. But, none of the parties have produced the notification to show that the said lands were acquired by the BDA. Further, it is the case of the defendant that the plaintiffs have played a fraud on the defendant and obtained a registered sale deeds. The defendant had lodged a complaint against the plaintiffs and criminal case was registered in PCR No.126/2004. In the said criminal case, FSL report was submitted. The plaintiffs have produced FSL report and the same was marked as Ex.P64. Ex.P64 discloses that the signature on Exs.P40 and P41 are the signature of the defendant. From the perusal of the records, the defendant had executed a registered sale deeds in favouor of the plaintiffs and it is registered. Unless and until the registered sale deeds are set aside, the defendant has no right to contend that the plaintiffs have got created the said documents. The plaintiffs have
