JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.

2. The appeal is defective. We also record that we could have dismissed the appeal for non-removal of the defects but we decide to hear the learned Counsel for the appellants on the grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal for admission.

3. The matter was adjourned on 19th January, 2023 on the prayer of the learned Advocate for the appellants.

4. The appeal is arising out of an appellate decree dated 30th June, 2016 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29th November, 2011 passed by the trial court in a suit for title, confirmation, possession and permanent injunction.

5. We have read the judgments of the trial court as well as of the first appellate court. We have also read the memorandum of appeal in order to ascertain whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law.

6. Briefly stated, the suit was originally belonged to the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the principal defendants, namely, Surendra Nath Biswas. During his lifetime, the wife of Surendra expired. Subsequently, Surendra Nath also died leaving behind the defendant no.1 as his only son, the plaintiff and Sudha Rani as daughters. The said legal heirs of Surendra Nath claimed to have possessed his estates by inheritance. The defendant no.1, plaintiff and Sudha Rani are co-sharers in respect of their father’s properties having 1/3rd share each therein. Later, Sudha Rani died leaving proforma defendant no.2 as her legal heir. The plaintiff is about 65- 66 years old. At the time of her marriage, her father in the presence of all invited guests promised before the nuptial fire that he would give 16 decimals of land bearing plot no. 6328 to this plaintiff. After her marriage she went to her matrimonial house at Baduria and resided there for about three years. However, her father Surendra in keeping with his earlier promise requested her to come over and stay at the afore-described land. Accordingly, her husband constructed a house made of earthen walls and hatched roof and started residing therein. Thereafter, in course of time bathroom, kitchen and privy were constructed and they also planted fruit bearing trees thereon. Plaintiff and her family have been residing thereon for the last 45 years. She has been possessing the said 16 decimals of land exclusively and the remaining lands of her father jointly with defendant nos. 1 and 2. As she had a very cordial relationship with her brother the defendant no.1 herein, she used to rely upon him completely in managing the affairs of their ancestral properties and used to accept happily whatever he used to tender her out of the usufructs of such properties. This plaintiff and principal defendant reside in the same village on the opposite sides of the village road since the time of their father. During the ongoing L.R. operation plaintiff went to the local settlement office to get her share in the ancestral property recorded in her name in the R.O.R. However, the local settlement officials refused to record her name in respect of her claimed share. When she asked her brother about the reason for such refusal, he told her that their father had gifted the entire suit property to him by a registered deed of gift which he gladly accepted. It is on 27.11.1998 that this plaintiff first came to know about the impugned deed of gift from principal defendant and it is on this very day that this defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land.

7. Thereafter plaintiff immediately made arrangements to obtain certified copies of the impugned deed from the registry office. Plaintiff submits that her father died long before the date of the impugned deed and consequently, had no opportunity to execute the same by putting his thumb impression thereon. He did not get the impugned deed registered nor did he ever authorised anyone to get the same registered. Defendant no.1 had no right or authority to present the impugned deed f