S.C. Das, J.

1. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, was admitted for hearing by order, dated 18.08.2000, passed by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether on the face of Ext. 9 which was admitted in evidence without any objection, containing recital of gift of landed property and delivery of possession of the donor to the donee, the decision of the learned Courts below that the gift was not proved or gift was not valid is sustainable.

2. Whether the findings of the learned Courts below that the Deed of gift (Ext. 9) is void and in-operative for want of acceptance by the donee or for non delivery of possession, is perverse.

Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. S. Datta for the appellants and learned senior counsel, Mr. Sankar Deb, assisted by Mr. S. Datta for the respdt. No. 1.

2. Respdt. Nos. 2 and 3 have chosen to remain absent.

3. Ulfater Rahman, the predecessor of present appellants (hereinafter mentioned as Plaintiff), instituted Title Suit No. 22/ 1988 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), South Tripura, Udaipur, against the defendant respondents (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) praying for a decree for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the land described in Schedule A(1) of the plaint, for recovery of possession of the land of Schedule 'B' evicting defendant No. 1 therefrom, for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the land of Schedule C of the plaint and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from entering into 'C' schedule land and for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation of the acquired land described in 'D' Schedule of the plaint and also for mesne profit in respect of the 'B' Schedule land etc.

Defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 refrain from contesting the suit. The trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties formulated six issues and in due course, on conclusion of trial, considering the pleadings and evidence on record, decided the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

The plaintiff preferred Title appeal No. 16/1996 in the Court of District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur and the learned Additional District Judge by judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2000, dismissed the appeal and hence the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

4. Land described in Schedule 'A' originally belonged to one Omar Ali Khadim, recorded in Jote No. 581 of Mouja Khilpara, measuring an area of 66 acre, which is the subject matter of the suit.

It is not disputed that Omar Ali Khadim sold the entire land of Jote No. 581 to Alefa Bibi by Sale Deed No. 689, dated 02.12.1352. TE (Exbt. 1).

Case of the plaintiff is that Alefa Bibi along with her husband Abdul Azim gifted the land of Jote No. 581 along with other lands to their daughter Indrabanu Bibi by an unregistered gift deed, dated 25.04.1353 TE. (Exbt. 9), and thereafter, Indrabanu along with Jahura Bibi sold out the land of Jote No. 581 to the plaintiff along with other lands by a sale-deed No. 3622 dated 21.09.1963 A.D. (Exbt. 10).

Defendant No. 1 disputed the gift made by Alefa to Indrabanu of the land of Jote No. 581 and that is the bone of contention between the parties.

The trial Court and the First Appellate Court both concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged gift by Alefa to Indrabanu and that there is no evidence that Indrabanu accepted the gift or that she got possession of the alleged gifted land.

5. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhow-mik, has submitted that recitals of Exbt. 9 clearly speak of handing over of possession by the donor to the donee and the original gift deed was in possession of donee, Indrabanu and after sale of land, Indrabanu handed over the gift deed to the plaintiff whic