1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 31.08.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta in Title Appeal No.59/2004 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Barpeta in Title Suit No.2/2003.

2. The Second Appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant was admitted by this Court to be heard on the following substantial questions of law :-

“1) Whether the learned Court below erred in canceling the sale deed Ext-4/Unga by shifting a wrong burden of proof on the appellant/defendant?

2) Whether the learned Court below erred in rejecting the determination made by the learned trial Court on the execution of the sale deed Ext.4/Unga in terms of section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in absence of any evidence adduced by the respondent-plaintiff, questioning the execution thereof by her?”

3. The brief factual background of this case is that according to the plaintiff she had purchased a plot of land measuring 2 katha 10 lechas covered by dag No.316 from its pattadar Yakub Ali Bhuyan by means of registered deed of sale No.1021 dated 28.07.1982 whereafter, the possession of the land was also delivered to her. The name of the plaintiff was duly mutated in respect of the said plot of land whereafter, the plaintiff had constructed a CI sheet house over the land and has been possessing the same through her tenants. On 07.04.1984 the plaintiff had again purchased another plot of land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas from the same vendor by means of registered deed of sale bearing No.921/84 and entered into possession in respect of the said plot of land. The aforementioned plot of land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas, described in Schedule-C to the plaint, is the suit land, which forms part of the compact plot of land measuring 3 katha 15 lechas described in Schedule-B to the plaint.

4. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant No.1, who is a boundary man of the plaintiff, is a greedy person and has forcibly occupied the Schedule-C land by dispossessing the plaintiff on 06.11.2002. Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff the defendant refused to vacate the Schedule-C land claiming to have purchased the same from the plaintiff vide registered deed of sale bearing No.193/2000 for a consideration of Rs.7000/-. The defendant is also running a mini cinema hall over the said plot of land without having a valid licence. It is also the case of the plaintiff that she could come to know about the registered deed of sale No.193/2000 only on the date of dispossession of the Schedule-C land. As such, the plaintiff had instituted the suit inter alia, praying for a declaration of her right, title and interest over the 3 katha 15 lechas of land described in Schedule-B to the plaint and also for a decree declaring that the sale deed No.193/2000 dated 28.01.2000 being a forged document be declared illegal, void and inoperative in the eye of law. The plaintiff has also prayed for consequential decree for recovery of khas possession in respect of the Schedule-C land.

5. On receipt of summons the defendant had entered appearance and contested the suit by filing his written statement, inter alia, questioning the maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of cause of action, suit being barred by limitation as well as on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. The contesting defendant, while denying the case of the plaintiff, has categorically stated that he has purchased the C-scheduled land from the plaintiff for the consideration amount of Rs.7000/- on the basis of registered deed of sale No.193/2000 dated 21.01.2000. The said sale deed was executed in terms of a baina nama executed by the plaintiff in the year 1988 pursuant whereto the defendant was put in possession of the suit land. After taking possession of the suit land, the defendant has improved upon the same by making earth filling and