ORDER :

1. This second appeal has come up for admission. However the appellant is not represented nor any accommodation is prayed on his behalf.

2. On the basis of the judgments of both the courts below and the materials available on record we propose to examine, if there is any substantial question of law involved in the second appeal.

3. The second appeal is arising out of the appellate judgment and decree dated 12th July, 2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Malda in Title Appeal No. 04 of 2017 (10/17) affirming the judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2016 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Malda in Title Suit No. 55 of 2007.

4. Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 55/2007 contending that one Chowdhury Lal Saha was the original owner of 1.12 decimal of land in plot No. 588, 645 and LR record or rights was duly prepared in the name of said Chowdhury Lal Saha. Plaintiff purchased the said property along with other properties from said Chowdhury Lal Saha vide deed No. 6161 dated 30.7.1976 and thereby acquired title and possession over the suit property. Defendant is brother of the plaintiff, who is creating disturbance in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

5. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. Defence contention is, it is true that Chowdhury Lal Saha was original owner of the suit property and LRROR prepared in his name but the plaintiff never purchased the suit property from said Chowdhury Lal Saha and plaintiff’s deed dated 30.07.1976 is fraudulent deed , which was prepared on the basis of false personification. Plaintiff practiced false personification in respect of his father Chowdhury Lal Saha and obtained the deed making conspiracy with the deed writer and witness. Said Chowdhury Lal Saha actually transferred the property in favour of the defendant by way of gift deed No. 4104 dated 27.03.1983 and delivered possession of the said property to the defendant. The defendant is in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years and as plaintiff has no right title in the suit property, so the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned Trial Court has framed 5 issues. Plaintiff himself deposed as PW1 and also adduced evidence of other two witnesses and proved original deed No. 6161 for the year 1976 in his favour, which is marked as exhibit ‘1’ and the certified copy of LRROR which is marked as exhibit ‘2’. On the contrary defendant adduced himself as DW1 and also adduced evidence of 4 other witnesses and he has also filed and proved the original deed of gift in his favour dated 27.03.1984 which is marked as exhibit ‘A’ and the signature of Chowdhury Lal Saha on the said deed of gift dated 27.03.1984 is marked as exhibit ‘A1’ to ‘A5’. The signature of Raghunath Ghosh on the said deed is marked as exhibit ‘B’.

7. It was argued on behalf of the defendant, before the Trial Court that plaintiff could not prove his sale deed and deed writer and witness of the deed was not examined and PW3 has admitted that plaintiff has no possession over the suit property and there is no witness that plaintiff paid consideration money to his father. On behalf of the plaintiff it was argued before the Trial Court that it is quite unnatural that money transaction between father and son would take place in presence of any person. The defendant in his written statement did not deny that there was no money transaction in between plaintiff and his father. The title deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit property was executed prior to the gift deed in favour of the defendant and defendant failed to prove that plaintiff obtained his title deed by false personification as the report of the hand writing expert is in favour of the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties and considering evidence and exhibited documents came