RSA 69/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants. This appeal by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Title Suit No.147/2000 is di rected against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010 passed by the learned Ci vil Judge No.1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No.38/2006 dismissing the same and affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010 passed by the learned Mu nsiff No.2, Silchar in the said suit, whereby and whereunder the suit of the pla intiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been decreed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein instituted Title Suit No.147/2000 in t he Court of the learned Munsiff against the present appellants as defendant Nos. 1 and 2, present proforma respondent Nos.3 and 4 as defendant Nos.3 and 4, who w ere the principal defendants in the said suit. That apart the present respondent Nos.5 to 104 were arrayed as the proforma defendants in the said suit. The plai ntiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said suit prayed for declaration of right, title and interest over the land described in the Schedule-3; for declaration th at the proforma defendants have no right, title and interest over the said land and also for permanent injunction restraining the principal defendants, their ag ents and relatives from interfering with and disturbing with the possession of t he plaintiffs in respect of the said land, contending inter alia that the plaint iff No.1 purchased the plot of land measuring 10 kathas in dag No.608 of 2nd R.S . Patta No.132, which was sold to him by his father Moskandar Ali Laskar during his lifetime. It is also the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Moskandar Ali Laskar in the year 1998, the property was amicably settled amo ngst the three sons, namely, the plaintiff No.1 as well as the defendants/respon dent Nos.1 and 2 and Moskandar’s 2nd wife i.e. plaintiff No.2. The further plead ed case is that by virtue of such purchase and inheritance as well as the subseq uent amicable settlement, the plaintiffs became the owner in respect of 2 bighas 8 kathas 13 chataks 17 gondas of land, which is described in Schedule-3 thereto and since the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 t ried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the said land and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were trying to create some documents in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 i n respect of the said land they filed the suit for declaration of right, title a nd interest and also for permanent injunction. Though all the defendants were served, only the defendant Nos.1 and 2 co ntested the suit by filing the joint written statement. The defendants in the sa id joint written statement have not denied the execution of the sale deed by Mos kandar Ali Laskar in favour of the plaintiff No.1 on 20.08.1993. It has, however , been pleaded that the sale deed was executed by the father of the defendant No s.1 and 2, who was threatened for imprisonment in relation to an arson case. Rel ating to the claim of the plaintiff No.2 over 1/8th share, according to the Moha mmedan Law, it has been contended by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement that since the plaintiff No.2 has abandoned her claim over the propert y of her husband Moskandar Ali Laskar by executing the ’Istafanama’, she cannot claim any property left behind by Moskandar Ali Laskar. The said defendants, the refore, have admitted that, but for the ’Istafanama’, the plaintiff No.2 would h ave inherited the property of Moskandar Ali Laskar. The learned Court below on the basis of the pleadings has framed the fol lowing issues for determination:- (1) Is their any cause of action for the suit against the answering defendan ts? (2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (3) Whether the plaintiff No.2 exeucted an Istafanama in favour of late Mosk andar Ali Laskar? (4) Whether the plaintiffs jointly executed an Ekrarnama in favour of late M oskandar Ali Laskar? (5) Whether the plaintiffs have any right, title and interest over the suit land? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief/reliefs as praye d for? While the plaintiffs examined 2(two) witnesses in support of their claim , the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not examine any witness. They even did not cross -examine any witness adduced by the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record has passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs, which though was challenged by t he present appellants in Title Appeal No.38/2006, the same has been dismissed as aforesaid. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that two substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal, namely (i) Whether a decree can be passed against the minor defendants, proforma de fendant Nos.85, 86, 87, 97 and 98 without appointing a guardian as required unde r Order 32 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure? (ii) Whether the Court can ignore the execution of the ’Istafanama’ as pleade d by the defendants in the written statement, while decreeing the suit of the pl aintiffs? It is evident from the plaint filed by the plaintiffs in the said suit t hat no decree was claimed against the proforma defendants including the proforma defendant Nos.85, 86, 87, 97 and 98. It also appears that no decree has been pa ssed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court agains t the said proforma defendants. That being the position, the first substantial q uestion of law as projected by the appellants does not arise in the suit. The second substantial question of law as projected by the appellants is that the learned Court below ought not to have overlooked the pleadings of the defendants in the written statement relating to the execution of the ’Istafanama ’ by the plaintiff No.2. The impugned judgment and decree reveals that while the plaintiffs examined two witnesses, the defendants did not examine any witness i n support of their pleadings relating to the execution of the ’Istafanama’ by th e plaintiff No.2 relinquishing her right over the property left behind by Moskan dar Ali Laskar. On the other hand the plaintiffs by adducing evidence could prov e their right, title and interest over the Schedule-3 land. The deposition of th e plaintiffs’ witnesses remained unchallenged as the defendant Nos.1 and 2 even did not cross-examine any witness of the plaintiffs. The defendants having raise d such plea has to prove the same, which they could not do by adducing any evide nce. The pleadings in the written statement, unless proved by adducing cogent an d reliable evidence, cannot be looked into by the Court. That being the position the second substantial question of law as projected by the appellants also does not arise in the case in hand. In view of the above, I am of the view that no substantial question of l aw is involved in the present appeal so as to admit the same and hence the appea l stands dismissed. No costs.