RSA 36/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY This appeal by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Title Suit No.14/99 is direc ted against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.07 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No.12/05 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.8.05 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr Divn), Nagaon (now Civil Judge) in Title Suit No.14/99, whereby and where-under the suit filed by the present respo ndents as plaintiffs has been decreed declaring the right, title and interest in respect of the ’Ka’ schedule land, confirming the possession in respect of ’Kha ’ schedule land and recovery of khas possession in respect of ’Ga’ schedule land . 2. The respondent herein filed Title Suit No.14/99 in the court of the lear ned Civil Judge(Sr Division), Nagaon against the present appellants as defendant Nos.1, 2 and others as proforma defendfants praying for the decree declaring ri ght, title and interest in respect of ’Ka’ schedule land measuring 19 lechas, fo r recovery of khas possession in respect of ’Ga’ schedule land measuring 9 feet x 20 feet, which is the part of ’Ka’ schedule land and confirmation of possessio n in respect of the remaining land in the ’Ka’ schedule described in Schedule ’K ha’, contending inter alia that the land measuring 1 katha 18 lecha was purchase d by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs along with Abdul Hussain by t he registered deed of sale dated 7.2.65 and took over possession of the land. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that after such purchase the land was par titioned between Abdul Subhan and Abdul Hussain and each got possession of separ ate land measuring 19 lecha covered by Dag Nos.23 and 26 of KP Patta No.320 unde r Town Mouza at Kachalukhuwa Kichamt Town in the district of Nagaon as described in Schedule ’Ka’. According to the plaintiffs, their predecessor-in-interest th ough allowed the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to stay in the plot of land described in Schedule ’Ga’ as permissive occupier, they surreptitiously got their names mutat ed in respect of 12 and 1/3rd lecha of land claiming the same to be their share. The plaintiffs, therefore, instituted a suit for declaration of right, title an d interest as their right has been clouded by the action of the defendants and a lso for confirmation and recovery of khas possession. The defendants No.1 & 2 on receipt of the summons entered appearance and contested the suit by filing writ ten statement, taking two contradictory stands, namely (i) that the suit land wa s purchased in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs from ou t of the family funds as they were at that time minor and, therefore, the suit land not being the self-acquired land of the predecessor-in-interest of the plai ntiffs, they have equal share over the land; and (ii) that the predecessor-in-in terest of the plaintiffs was minor at the time of purchase in the year 1956 and, therefore, there is no question of purchasing the land by the predecessor-in-in terest of the plaintiffs. It has been contended that the suit land is the ancest ral property belonging to Ramjan Ali, the father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2; a nd Abdul Subhan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs.. 3. The learned court below on the basis of the pleadings, framed the follow ing issues: 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit property is ancestral property of the parties? 3. Whether the defendants are the permissive possessor over the suit land a nd house under the predecessor of the plaintiffs? 4. Whether the defendants are entitled to get a share of the suit property? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 6. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to? 4. The trial court upon appreciation of the evidences adduced by the partie s, both oral and documentary, decided the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs could prove the right, title an d interest over ’Ka’ schedule land as they could prove that the said land was pu rchased by their predecessor-in-interest by the registered deed of sale dated 7. 2.56 (Ext.3) and they inherited the property being the legal heirs of Abdul Subh an. The learned trial court has further held that though the defendants took the plea that the suit land was not the self-acquired property of Abdul Subhan they could not prove by adducing any evidence and, on the other hand, the witnesses of the defendants have supported the case of the plaintiffs. 5. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred Title Appeal No.12/05 in the c ourt of the learned District Judge, Nagaon, who vide judgment and order dated 20 .9.07 affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, concurring wi th the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial court. Hence the present ap peal. 6. I have heard Mr SK Barkataki, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr AK Goswami, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr SK Barkataki, learned counsel for the appellants, referring to the pl eadings of the defendants in the written statement, has submitted that as the de fendants have taken the plea that the suit land is the ancestral property and th e predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was a minor at the time of execution of the alleged sale deed dated 7.2.56, there is no question of transfer of the land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs by registered de ed of sale and hence, the defendants have equal share over the suit property, th e same having not been considered by the learned courts below, the judgments pas sed are perverse and, therefore, the appeal requires to be admitted by framing t he substantial question of law in that regard. 8. Mr AK Goswami, learned senior counsel for the respondents has, on the ot her hand, submitted that the defendants in the written statement have in fact ad mitted the title of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and also havin g not disputed that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Abdul Subhan who purc hased the suit land by a registered deed of sale(Ext.3) dated 7.2.56, the learne d courts below have rightly recorded the finding of fact that the plaintiffs hav e the right, title and interest in respect of the suit land. It has further been submitted that the defendants though have taken the plea that the property in q uestion is not the self-acquired property of Abdul Subhan, the predecessor-in-in terest of the plaintiffs, they could not substantiate the plea by adducing any e vidence and the same having been concluded by the concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, no substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. 9. The defendants in the written statement has admitted the title of the pl aintiffs by admitting that Abdul Subhan, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintif fs, purchased the land in question by registered deed of sale dated 7.2.56, besi des admitting that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs/representatives of Abdul S ubhan, but at the same time in para-17 of the written statement, they have taken a contradictory stand to the effect that the suit land is the ancestral propert y belonging to one Ramjan Ali, their predecessor-in-interest, who was also the f ather of Abdul Subhan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and, theref ore, there cannot be any transfer of the land in favour of Abdul Subhan by Ext.3 . The defendants though have taken such plea could not prove their case that the land is the ancestral property originally belonged to Ramjan Ali and, therefore , they have acquired equal right over such land. The plaintiffs, on the other ha nd, by exhibiting the certified copy of the sale deed (Ext.3) could prove that t he suit land was purchased by their predecessor-in-interest by the registered de ed of sale dated 7.2.56, which document was admitted into evidence without there being any objection from the defendants. The defendants also could not prove th eir plea that the land was not the self-acquired property of Abdul Subhan and th at it was purchased in the name of Abdul Subhan from out of the family fund. In fact, the witnesses as noticed by the learned courts below have supported the ca se of the plaintiffs. Both the learned courts below have recorded the concurrent finding of fact in that regard. The appellants though argued that the findings recorded by the learned courts below are perverse being not based on any evidenc e, could not demonstrate as to how the judgments of the learned courts below are perverse. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that no substantia l question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.