JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District, Fast Track 2nd Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Title Appeal No. 4 of 2016, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 30th August, 2014 passed by learned 1st Court, Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Contai in Title Suit No. 25 of 2012.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, the appeal relates to proper perspective, it is expedient to have a brief fact of the case, Sideshwar Mondal and Smt. Kajal Mondal filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property described in schedule 'Ka' of the plaint against Smt. Durga Rani Pandit contending, inter alia, that 'Ka' schedule property originally owned by one Manas Kumar Pandit who sold and transferred the same on 3rd December, 2007 to Bhanu Chandra Das and 10th April, 2010 to the proforma-respondent no. 2, Bhanu Chandra Das. Said Bhanu Chandra Das on 8th July, 2011 executed the sale deed transferring thereby 55 decimal of land out of 'Ka' schedule property in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 and on 13th July, 2011 he sold and transferred 21.5 decimal of land in favour of the plaintiff no. 2 but the deeds were registered on 2nd November, 2011 and 4th November, 2011 respectively. Thus, the plaintiffs acquired right title interest and possession in respect of the said property. The plaintiffs further stated that as the non-judicial stamp papers, required to prepare the deeds were not available with the stamp vendor of jurisdictional Sub-Registrar office, they had to procure it from the stamp vendors, working far away from the residence of the plaintiffs.

4. However, after the execute of the deeds, the proforma-defendant since had to remain away from home and it was not possible for the plaintiffs to present the title deeds for registration till 13th July, 2011. On 21st November, 2011 when the plaintiffs wanted to encircle the land with isle, the defendant no. 1 denied their title in respect of 'Ka' schedule property and threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property claiming inter alia to have acquired ownership in respect of the suit property by purchase.

5. This incident prompted the plaintiff to file this suit which was contested by the defendant no. 1 by filing written statement denying all material allegations made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant the 'Ka' schedule property was owned by the husband of defendant no. 1. Proforma-defendant no. 2 purchased the said property and subsequently while in need of money the proforma-defendant no. 2 decided to dispose of the property at a consideration of Rs. 2,32,815/- and the defendant no 1 purchased the same. The deed was executed on 15th July, 2011 and registration was done on 18th July, 2011. The defendant no. 1 thus having acquired title in respect of property in suit started possessing the same by mutating her name. The plaintiffs when disclosed that they acquired the property by purchase, the defendant got the office of the Registering authority searched and found that the plaintiffs got the two sale deeds prepared and executed in their name on antedated stamp papers in collusion with the proforma-defendant no. 2 with whom the plaintiff no. 1 had friendship. The antedated stamp papers were purchased from the vendors dealing in Non-Judicial stamp papers beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the local Registering Authority. This fact indicates that collusively the deeds were prepared to harass the plaintiff.

6. Learned Trial Court after considering the pleadings