1. Heard Mr. K.R. Surana, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is presented against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2005, passed by the learned District Judge, Barpeta, in Title Appeal No. 6 of 2002, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 9 of 1995, whereby the suit was partly decreed.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, Dambarudhar Medhi and defendant No. 1, Chakradhar Medhi are sons of Bhuban Chandra Medhi. Defendant No. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are sons of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Bhuban Chandra Medhi died on 05.08.1991, when he was about 100 years old leaving behind the property as described in Schedule-A to the plaint. Plaintiff is the younger son of Bhuban Chandra Medhi. The plaintiff, in connection with his service, was not residing in his family house but he kept constant touch with his father and other members of the family and took care of Bhuban Chandra Medhi during his lifetime. Bhuban Chandra Medhi was a literate person and he could write his name. It is alleged that with a view to deprive the plaintiff, the defendants got Chitha mutation on 18.12.1985 in respect of land measuring 3 Bigha 3 Lecha of land by a registered batowara. Chitha mutation was obtained on 19.12.90 by the defendant No. 2 on the basis of a gift deed in respect of 1 Bigha 4 Katha 15 Lecha. Bhuban Chandra Medhi did not execute gift deed No. 1931/85, dated 21.11.85, in favour of the defendant No. 2 by putting thumb impression on the gift deed. Another gift deed, being gift deed No. 1932/85, was allegedly executed by Bhuban Chandra Medhi in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 in respect of 16 Bigha 2 Katha 3 Lecha of land by putting thumb impression.

4. The defendants filed written statement denying the allegations. It was pleaded that in the year 1982 or so, Bhuban Chandra Medhi had sustained serious injury in his right hand and was rendered incapable to write. The defendants had taken care of Bhuban Chandra Medhi and he had become dependent on the defendants. Due to love and affection, in sound mind and health and without being influenced from any quarter, the gift deeds had been executed. It was stated that the plaintiff, after being employed, did not look after and help his father and, perhaps, because of that Bhuban Chandra Medhi was not happy with him.

5. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and the defendants’ side examined four witnesses. The gift deeds were exhibited as Ext.-‘Kha’ and ‘Ga’. The learned courts below, on consideration of the materials on record, including the evidence of DW2, Jogendra Nath Roy, the scribe, Tarini Kanta Roy and Golok Deka, the attesting witnesses, DW3 and DW4, respectively, held that the execution of the gift deeds were duly proved. Accordingly, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit in respect of the prayer made for declaration of the gift deeds as forged and illegal and inoperative in law. However, based on Ext.-‘ka’, it was held that the plaintiff has right, title and interest over an area of 3 Bigha 3 Lecha of land under Schedule-‘A’.

6. The appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 09.08.2006 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below suffer from perversity in upholding the legality and validity of both Ext. “Kha’ and Ext.’Ga’ those being the gift deeds executed by late Bhuban Chandra Medhi without deciding whether the defendants received actual physical possession of the suit land from Late Medhi and though the defendants/respondents No. 2 to 7 failed to prove both these Ext. ‘Kha’ and Ext.’Ga’.”

7. Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the gift deeds were manifestly forged as Bhuban Chandra Medhi was a literate person and there would have been no occasion