JUDGMENT

Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - This Second appeal has been preferred by appellant/defendant impugning the judgment and decree dated 25th March, 2008, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, alipore, in Title appeal No. 279 of 2006, reversing the judgment and decree dated 6th april, 2006, passed by learned additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, alipore in Title Suit No. 35 of 2005, dismissing the suit ex parte.

Before coming to the core issues raised in this appeal, in context with the substantial question of law already framed by Division Bench of this Court, a reference to some revealing facts may be of good relevance. This would, however, necessary for perfectly understanding of the dispute surfaced between the parties.

The suit property, mentioned in the Schedule to the plaint, originally belonged to one Radha Rani Sarkar, since deceased.

admittedly, Radha Rani Sarkar inducted appellant/defendant in the suit property, as a licensee. after the demise of Radha Rani Sarkar on 13th February, 2000, plaintiffs, as legal heirs of Radha Rani Sarkar, directed appellant/defendant to quit and vacate the suit property.

Without caring for the direction of the plaintiffs, appellant/defendant indulged in raising illegal construction in the suit property. Local municipality issued a letter, dated 30th October, 2000, requiring appellant/defendant to stop construction.

Ultimately, a notice dated 28.12.2000, directing appellant/defendant to quit and vacate the suit property was issued.

Upon receiving the notice, appellant/respondent responded to such notice furnishing a reply stating therein that appellant/defendant on the strength of sale deed dated 02.12.1998, became the owner of the suit property, and thus raised question disputing with the alleged licence, stated to have been issued in favour of appellant/defendant.

Radha Rani Sarkar was alleged to be an illiterate lady, and at the material point of time she remained alone in the suit property, and had to be grossly dependent upon appellant/defendant for her living.

It was alleged by respondents/plaintiffs that taking advantage of her illiteracy, loneliness and simplicity, the appellant/defendant might have procured some signatures Radha Rani Sarkar, since deceased on some blank papers, and subsequently converted the same into instrument for her unlawful gain.

The reply of appellant/defendant, sent to respondents/plaintiff claiming her title to the suit property on the strength of a sale deed, got the plaintiffs' title clouded over the suit property, and accordingly filed suit for eviction of licensee from the suit property.

The suit was set for ex parte hearing due to non-appearance of appellant/defendant in response to summons being already issued, and it was ultimately dismissed ex parte by Trial Court.

against the dismissal of suit, plaintiffs preferred appeal before the 1st Lower appellate Court being Title appeal No. 279 of 2006.

The appeal was allowed in part upon reversing the judgment of the Trial Court, thereby granting eviction decree after declaring that the appellant/defendant had no right, title and interest in the suit property, who was mere licensee therein.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment granting eviction decree upon declaring appellant/defendant to be licensee by 1st Lower appellate Court, the Second appeal has been preferred impugning such judgment.

Division Bench of this Court framed following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether the Learned First appellate Court committed substantial error of law by passing a decree of eviction before declaring the deed of sale, dated 2nd December, 1998 as forged, illegal and void?

2) Whether the Learned Courts below committed substantial error of law by not drawing an adverse inference against the plaintiff/respondent for non-production of certified copy of the sale deed dated 2.12.98 in terms of Section 65 of the Evidence act?

The moot point requiring address by this Court is whether ther