This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned courts below whereby suit of the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court and the same was upheld by the learned first appellate court.

2. Present appellant, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 34/2000 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Nalbari stating that his paternal uncle late Ratneswar Das owned and possessed 2 Kathas of land under Dag No. 604 of KP Patta No. 21 of village Kaljar under Paschim Baska Mouza in the district of Nalbari. Ratneswar had purchased this land from one Atal Ali by registered sale deed dated 22.10.1971 at a consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. Ratneswar did not have any issue, however, he had two wives. His first wife Prabha Das died after death of Ratneswar and during her life time she gifted her share of 13½ lechas of land in the aforesaid dag and patta in favour of the plaintiff by Chitha mutation. The second wife Malati Das was surviving but she filed an objection before the revenue authority challenging the mutation obtained by the plaintiff on the basis of the gift. The revenue authority allowed the application and set aside the initial mutation order. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the land measuring 13½ lechas. According to the plaintiff, he was adopted by Ratneswar Das during his life time and all along he lived with him. Ratneswar reared him up and gave him education and ultimately he constructed his house on the land of Ratneswar.

3. Appearing in the case, the principal defendant Malati Das denied the claim of adoption made by the plaintiff. According to her, plaintiff Praneswar Das was son of Late Jibon Das, who is younger brother of Ratneswar Das. Although it is true that Ratenswar did not have any issue but he had two wives, and that he did never take Praneswar into adoption and that plaintiff did not acquire right, title and interest to the suit property upon death of Ratneswar. She also denied the claim as to gift made by Prabha Das during her life time. She prayed that the suit be dismissed with cost.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned trial court framed following 7 issues:-

1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether suit is maintainable in its present form?

3. Whether plaintiff was the adopted son of late Ratneswar Das and entitled to instant properties left by late Ratneswar Das?

4. Whether plaintiff acquired right, title and interest over the suit land?

5. Whether Defendants got right, title and interest over the suit land?

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to reliefs as prayed for?

7. To what after relief/reliefs parties are entitled?

5. During trial, plaintiff examined 4 witnesses and exhibited as many as 6 documents including the document of title by which Ratneswar had purchased the land. Defendant, on the other hand, examined 2 witnesses including herself and exhibited 4 documents. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, the learned trial court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 24.08.2004 holding that plaintiff was never adopted by Ratneswar Das as there was no proof in support thereof. Moreover, there was no valid gift deed executed Prabha Das during her life time. Plaintiff claimed to have got 13½ lechas of land from Prabha Das by way of Chitha mutation and there was no valid gift as required by law. Holding so, the other two issues, namely, issues No. 4 and 5 were also decided against the plaintiff. Consequently, the entire suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved at the aforesaid trial court judgment and decree, the plaintiff instituted Title Appeal No. 22/2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Nalbari. The learned first appellate court re-appreciated the evidence, perused the materials available on record and after considering the judgment pas