RSA 109/2004 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr Borbhuiyan, learned co unsel for the respondents. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of the Code o f Civil Procedure ( for short, hereafter referred to as the ’Code’) has been sou ght to be invoked to interfere with the judgment and order dated 22.4.2004 of t he learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Karimganj in Title Appeal No.3/2001 aff irming the judgment and decree dated 1.12.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Junior Division) NO.3, Karimganj in Title Suit No.73/1977. The notice of the instant appeal was issued on 15.8.2002 requiring the r espondents to show cause as to why the same would not be admitted. According to Mr Dutta, the appeal thereafter was admitted and the substantial questions of la w had been formulated. The order-sheets however, do not bear out the same. Be t hat as it may, considering the year of its registration, this Court on 30.5.2011 ordered for listing of this appeal for final disposal today.The learned counsel for the parties have thus been heard. The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants instituted the af orementioned suit against the respondents herein praying for a decree inter ali a for a declaration of their right, title, interest in and possession of the sui t land described in the schedule to the plaint. A decree for permanent injunctio n to restrain the respondents from disturbing his possession of the suit land w as also prayed for. His pleaded case was that he had purchased the suit land from one Matasi n Ali, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents vide registered sale deed No.1 022, whereafter he secured the possession thereof and occupied the same by grow ing paddy thereon. As the respondents/defendants endeavoured to dispossess him from the suit land by force, the suit was filed seeking the aforementioned reli efs. The respondents/defendants contested the suit by filling joint written statemen t categorically denying the claim of purchase of the suit land by a registered s ale deed from their predecessor-in-interest of Matasin Ali. According to them, one Rion Ali was the jotedar of the suit land along with other adjacent plots totaling about 2 poas under the landlord Monoranjan Roy and ors. They contend ed that eventually Rion Ali sold his right in favour of Matasin Ali and his bro ther Raiob Ali vide registered deed dated 15.10.59, whereafter the purchasers c ame into the exclusive possession of the land and remained as such without an y interference from any quarter. The respondents/defendants therefore denied th e appellants/plaintiffs’ claim of purchase and possession of the suit land. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed issues. The partie s adduced oral and documentary evidence and by judgment and order dated 22.1.200 4 the suit was dismissed. The appeal also met the same fate. Mr Gogoi has argued that as the appellants/plaintiffs had duly proved the docume nt of sale, Ext.1 it being registered in law, the learned courts below erred in law in relying on the death certificate, Ext. A produced by the Respondents/de fendants in nullifying the same. According to the learned counsel, as the resp ondents/defendants did not in their written statement plead that their predeces sor-in-interest Matasin Ali had died before the execution of the sale deed Ext.1 , the death certificate was inadmissible in law. The sale deed being a proclamat ion of the transfer to the whole world, the validity thereof cannot be repudia ted in the manner sought to be done by the learned courts below, he urged. Mr Borbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has drawn t he attention of this Court to the relevant excepts of the written statement to c ontend that the execution of the sale deed having been denied in categorical ter m and the plea taken by the appellants/plaintiffs having been rejected by the tw o courts, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. It having consid ered the case of the respondents/defendants that on the death of their predecess or-in-interest , the interest in the suit property had devolved on them and tha t they are in exclusive possession thereof, the learned courts below were perfec tly justified in taking note of the factum of his death to reject the claim of t he appellants/plaintiffs. The pleadings on record and the arguments advanced have been duly considered. Th at the case of the appellants is founded on the sale deed, Ext.1 is apparent. A perusal of the written statement of the respondents/defendants bring to light t he following features - (1) Categorical denial of the sale of the suit land by their predecessor-in- interest Matasin Ali in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant s/plaintiffs vide the sale deed No.1022. (2) Denial of the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs that since execution of the aforementioned document, their predecessor-in-interest had been in posse ssion of the suit land enjoying the usufruct thereof. (3) Categorical denial of the original plaintiffs’ claim of right, title, in terest in or possession of the suit land on the basis of the sale. The learned lower appellate court in analyzing the evidence on record, laid emp hasis on the fact that Matasin Ali, predecessor -in- interest of the respondent s /defendants had died before the execution of the sale deed Ext.1 on 1.7.1966. It noticed further that though this document was executed on 1.7.66 it was reg istered on 16.10.66. On the basis of this finding gathered from the document its elf, the learned courts below disbelieved the testimony of PWs 1 and 4 to the e ffect that the deed was executed and registered on the very same date It held the view that though the factum of death of Matasin Ali as a ground to discar d Ext. 1 was not in specific terms mentioned in the written statement, hav ing regard to the fact that death certificate, Ext. A was a public document i t was admissible in law and entitled to primacy over Ext.1. Having r eached this view, the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal in affirmation of the de cision of the learned trial court in the same lines. It cannot be gainsaid that the respondents/defendants have not in clear terms recited the death of their predecessor-in-interest Matasin Ali to be one of the grounds to dismiss the validity of the sale deed though they had consist ently denied the execution thereof by him. A perusal of the plaint available in the appeal brief does not disclose the date of the sale deed though the number thereof is mentioned to be 1022. Be that as it may, as the pleadings in a suit do not constitute evidence, once the factual foundation of any assertion is ava ilable therein, in the opinion of this Court, the elaboration thereof by way of evidence oral and documentary is permissible in law. Though Mr Gogoi has urged that at the time of registration of the sale deed, DW 2 who identified the executant Matasin Ali, Ext.A, the death certificate being a public document, the authenticity whereof has not been questioned by the appel lants/ plaintiffs, this court is not in a position to dislodge the reasonings r ecorded by the learned courts below in defiance of logic or preposterous or impl ausible. In any view of the matter, the plea taken by the appellants, against th e admissibility of Ext.A for want of averment in the written statement that the execution of the sale deed was an impossibility as their predecessor in intere st had died before execution thereof, does not therefore appeal to this court. On a conjoint reading of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence as discus sed by the learned courts below, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the appella nts have failed to make out any substantial question of law warranting interfere nce of this court. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs.