JUDGMENT :

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

3. The second appeal is arising out of the appellate judgment and decree dated 24th December, 2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in Title Appeal No. 31 of 2012 affirming the judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in Title Suit No. 03 of 2007.

4. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that the properties mentioned in ‘Ka’ schedule to the plaint belongs to her. The plaintiff also claimed that the sale deed described in Ka/1 schedule to the plaint is forged, illegal and void ab initio. The basis of the claim of the plaintiff is that at the time of execution of deed of gift on 4th October, 1982 by the grand mother of the plaintiff in respect of ‘Ka’ schedule property, the plaintiff was a minor and her father Kalipada Manna executed the deed of gift on her behalf and took possession. It was stated that due to mistake the fact of her remaining minor on 4th October, 1982 was not mentioned in the said deed of gift. Subsequently, on attaining majority, the plaintiff got married and started living at her ancestral house. As such, the father of the plaintiff was in possession of the said deed of gift on her behalf. At the time of preparation of L.R.R.O.R the plaintiff asked her father for recording her name in the record of rights which her father assured that the property has been recorded in her name. Being assured, she did not make any further enquiry. However, due to need of money when she came to her father’s house and requested her father to sale out the property, she came to learn that her name was not recorded in the L.R.R.O.R, instead the same was recorded in the name of the defendants. On an enquiry made by the plaintiff, the defendants disclosed about the existence of a sale deed in their name. Subsequently, the plaintiff collected the certified copy of the sale deed mentioned in “Ka/1’ schedule to the plaint i.e. the sale deed executed on 12th May, 1983 and registered on 16th May, 1983 at Sub-Registry office, Hanschara and came to learn that the impugned sale deed had been procured by the defendants in collusion with the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the deed is a forged one and at the time of execution of the sale deed she was 16/17 years old and she used to study at Dibakarpur High School at that relevant time. The headmaster of the said school issued a certificate regarding her date of birth showing that she was minor at the relevant time. Since the plaintiff was minor, she had no legal right to transfer the suit property. It was alleged that she had never transferred the suit property in favour of the defendants nor she accepted any consideration money in lieu thereof and the signature appearing in the alleged deed is not her signature.

5. The defendants in their written statement admitted that grand mother of the plaintiff was the owner of the ‘Ka’ schedule property and the defendants used to possess the land as ‘Bargadar’. The plaintiff is the elder daughter of Kalipada Manna. The defendants came to know from the father of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was born in the year 1964. At the time of execution of deed of gift, on 2nd October, 1982 by Kiranbala Bag, the plaintiff was major and the same was duly executed in presence of deed writers, witnesses to the deed. The plaintiff executed the said deed of gift in respect of the suit property and started possessing the same through the defendants who are Bargadars at the time of execution of the registered deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafte