JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order no.25 dated February 14, 2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sreerampore, Hooghly in Title Appeal No.26 of 2016 arising out of Title Suit No.62 of 2006, the application being CO 709 of 2021 has been preferred.

2. Similarly, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same order dated February 14, 2020 passed by the same court in Title Appeal No.27 of 2016 arising out of Title Suit No.196 of 2005, the application being CO 713 of 2021 has been preferred.

3. Be it mentioned Title Suit No.62 of 2006 was instituted by Sekh Sarfuddin and otheres (sekhs) for declaration of title and injunction against Nirapada Hazra and others (Hazras) and on the other hand Title Suit No.196 of 2005 was instituted by aforesaid Hazras against aforesaid Sekhs for declaration of absolute right, title and interest in respect of schedule mentioned property to plaint. Learned trial court heard both the aforesaid suits between Hazras and Sekhs analogously and after trial decreed Title Suit No.196 of 2005 instituted by Hazras and dismissed Title Suit No.62 of 2006 instituted by Sekhs. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, Sekhs being plaintiffs of Title Suit No.62 of 2006 preferred Title Appeal No.38 of 2014 subsequently renumbered as Title Appeal No.27 of 2016 said Sekhs being defendants of Title Suit No.196 of 2005 preferred Title Appeal No.37 of 2016 which renumbered as Title Appeal No.26 of 2016. While learned First Appellate Court is hearing both the appeals analogously, common appellants of both the appeals filed amendment application for making same amendment in plaint of aforesaid Title Suit No.62 of 2006 and written statement of aforesaid Title Suit No.196 of 2005.

4. Since the issues involved in both the revisional applications are same in connection with same prayer for amendment, one in the plaint in Title Suit No.196 of 2005 and the other in respect of same amendment in written statement in Title Suit No.62 of 2005, both the revisional applications are hereby disposed of by this common order.

5. By the impugned order, learned court below was pleased to allow common appellant's prayer for amendment and thereby allowed amendment of plaint of Title Suit No.62 of 2006 and written statement of Title Suit No.196 of 2005.

6. In the said judgment passed by the trial court analogously in the aforesaid Title Suit No.196 of 2005 along with Title Suit No.62 of 2006, the court below observed that the defendant of Title Suit No.196 of 2005 asserted their title over the suit property by three registered deeds of sale which have been marked as Exhibit A, B and C and from the cross-examination of DW1 it appeared that the vendor of defendants, namely, Aminur Bibi is the mother of the defendant no.1 and the court below prima facie disbelieved that Aminur Bibi, mother had sold the property to her sons and he held that it is quite impossible that a mother had sold her property to her son. Moreover, the learned court below also held that vendor of the defendant, Aminur Bibi, claimed that she acquired the property by way of purchase and she purchased the same from auction sale but defendants never pleaded anything about the acquisition of property by Aminur Bibi by way of auction purchase and in the Exhibit A, B and C nothing has been mentioned from whom and in which auction sale Aminur Bibi purchased the suit property. Accordingly, the court below held that though defendant could not state as to who were the owner of the suit property prior to Aminur Bibi and defendants have heard from their mother that their mother purchased the suit property by auction sale which took place at Serampore Court in the year 1935 but they do not know anything about the sale certificate and they could not say the case number in connection with which the auction took place, and as such disbelieving appellant’s purchase from Aminur Bibi decided both the suits against present appellants.

7. In the said t