RSA 146/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decre e dated 30.03.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nagaon in Title A ppeal No.7/2007 dismissing the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Nagaon, in Title Su it No.72/2000, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. 2. The plaintiffs instituted the Title Suit No.72/2000 in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Nagaon, for declaration of right, title, inte rest and for recovery of khas possession against the present appellants as defen dants contending inter alia that the suit land was originally belonged to one Al imuddin and after his death in the year 1933 it was inherited by his legal heirs , namely, Newaj Ali, Yakub Ali, Sukur Ali, fathers of the proforma defendants an d accordingly their names were mutated in the revenue records. It has further be en contended that the suit land was subsequently purchased by a registered deed of sale dated 23.12.1952 (Ext.-2) by Samat Ali, father of the plaintiff and Jabe d Ali, the paternal uncle of the plaintiff and they were put into possession. It is also the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that Jabed Ali died in the year 1970 leaving behind his brother as the only heir and accordingly inherited the property and occupied the entire land measuring 8 bighas 15 lechas which was ear lier purchased in the name of both the brothers by Ext.-2 sale deed. The further case of the plaintiff is that Samat Ali on 29.04.1980 by the registered gift de ed (Ext.-1) gifted the land measuring 4 bighas 15 lechas out of 8 bighas 15 lech as in favour of the plaintiff No.1. The further contention of the plaintiff is t hat in the year 1982 the father of the plaintiff Samat Ali and other family memb ers left for another place and during their absence the plaintiff No.1’s father requested the defendants to look after the suit land and on their return on 12.0 9.1999 they asked the defendants to handover the possession of the land, they de nied right, title and interest of the plaintiff. The further contention was that after the death of Samat Ali in the year 1984 the plaintiffs inherited the rema ining 4 bighas of land. 3. The defendants/appellants contested the suit by filing the written state ment basically contending that the land measuring 6 bighas 5 lechas out of the s uit land was purchased by them in the year 1980. 4. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, fr amed the following issues for considerations and decisions:- (1) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary par ties? (3) Whether the suit is properly valued? (4) Whether the plaintiff have right, title and interest over the suit land? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get relied as prayed for? (6) To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to? 5. The plaintiff in support of the case examined 3(three) witnesses. The de fendant Nos.1 and 2 though submitted their evidence on affidavit, but they did n ot make themselves available for cross-examination. The defendants, however, exa mined another witness, namely, DW-3, who is a record keeper in the office of the sub-Registrar to prove the sale of 6 bighas 5 lechas of land in favour of the d efendants, as contended in the written statement. The plaintiff also apart from other documents proved the sale deed dated 23.12.1952 (Ext.-2) and the gift deed dated 29.04.1980 (Ext.-1). 6. The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record, ha s decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs could prove their title over t he suit land by proving the Ext.-2 sale deed dated 23.12.1952 executed in favour of Samat Ali and Jabed Ali, the father and paternal uncle of the plaintiffs apa rt from proving the Ext.-1 gift deed dated 29.04.1980 executed by Samat Ali in f avour of plaintiff No.1 gifting 4 bighas 15 lechas of land out of the purchased land of 8 bighas 15 lechas. It has further been held that after the death of Jab ed Ali, the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs, who jointly purchased the suit lan d with Samat Ali, his property was inherited by his brother Samat Ali, the only heir, who is the father of the plaintiffs and after his death the property was d evolved on the plaintiffs. The plea of the defendants that 6 bighas 5 lechas of land purchased by them in the year 1980 has, however, been not accepted, as the defendants did not prove the sale deed though the DW-3, the record-keeper of the office of the Sub-Registrar prove the register of the sale deed, but he could n ot prove the signature of the vendor in such sale deed as well as the contents t hereof. 7. Being aggrieved, the present appellants preferred Title Appeal No.7/2007 in the Court of the learned District Judge, which was eventually transferred to the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge. The said appeal was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2010 by concurring with the finding recorde d by the learned Trial Court and by upholding the judgment and decree passed in the suit. Hence the present appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned Sr. counsel for the appellants. 9. It is contended by Mr. Dey, learned Sr. counsel for the appellants that it is evident from the evidence of PW-1 that Jabed Ali, who died in the year 197 0 was not issueless, but was a married person and his son died 5/6 years before the date of deposition of PW-1 and hence according to Mr. Dey, the contention of the plaintiff that Jabed Ali left behind Samat Ali, his brother, as the only he ir cannot be accepted and hence the contention relating to inheritance of the pr operty of Jabed Ali by Samat Ali and subsequently by his son also cannot be acce pted. 10. It appears from the judgment and decrees passed by the learned courts be low that the plaintiff could prove the execution of sale deed dated 23.12.1952 ( Ext.-2) in favour of Samat and Jabed. The plaintiff also could prove the registe red gift deed executed on 29.04.1980 (Ext.-1) by which, out of the land purchase d i.e. 8 bighas 15 lechas vide registered sale deed dated 23.12.1952, land measu ring 4 bighas 15 lechas was gifted to the plaintiff No.1 by Samat which land fel l in his share. The remaining 4 bighas of land fell in the share of Jabed Ali. T he evidences as discussed by the learned courts below further reveal that a clea r finding of fact has been recorded that Jabed died leaving only Samat Ali, his brother as his heirs and hence Samat Ali inherited the share of Jabed Ali i.e. 4 bighas of land after the death of Jabed Ali and eventually the plaintiffs inher ited the said share of the land after the death of Samat Ali, their father. The contention of the learned Sr. counsel that Jabed was not issueless and as such S amat cannot be the only heir of Jabed, cannot be accepted as, there is clear evi dence on record, as discussed by both the courts below, that Jabed Ali died leav ing Samat, his brother as the only heir, which is a concluded finding of fact, r ecorded by both the courts below. Even if it is taken that Jabed had a son, who according to the learned counsel for the appellants himself died 5/6 years prior to the examination of the PW-1 and it is not being the submission of the learne d counsel for the appellants that after the death of the said son there were oth er heirs of Jabed, except his brother Samat, the property left behind by Jabed w ould devolved on Samat, his brother. Moreover, the appellants have not taken any ground of perversity in recording finding contending that any particular portio n of evidence of PW-1 has not been appreciated at all by the learned Courts belo w. 11. In view of the above, I am of the view that no substantial question of l aw is involved to admit this appeal and hence the appeal is not admitted and the refore dismissed. No cost.