1. This is an appeal under Section 100 by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the C.P.C. questioning the legality of the reversal judgment dated 28.08.2007 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura in Title Appeal No. 27 of 2006.

2. The appellant and the respondent No. 3 filed the suit being Title Suit No. 27 of 2006 for declaration that the schedule deeds are illegal, effects of fraud and collusion, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and further that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/2 share in the properties described under the schedule of the property. By 3(three) registered gift deeds under No. 1-617, 1-618 & 1-619 dated 10.03.1986, described in the second schedule, Rashamoy Sen, the father of the appellant, gifted the entire suit land described in the first schedule to Rabindra Sen, his only son, the respondent No. 1. Their allegations in the plaint are that on exercising of undue influence and fraud their three uncles made their father to execute the gift deeds in a clandestine manner. Even their mother namely Malati Sen, respondent No. 4, was in the dark and the plaintiffs gathered the knowledge of existence of gift deeds only on 06.04.2005 when their husbands searched and obtained the certified copies of the said gift deeds dated 10.03.1986. It is not in the controversy that the donor, their father, died on 09.08.1986. The appellant have questioned the validity of the deeds on another ground that at the relevant point of time the respondent No. 1 was minor and his acceptance of the gift deed is not tenable in law in view of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. That apart, the appellant and the respondent No. 3 have asserted in the plaint that at the relevant point of time their father was suffering from serious ailments. The allegations of fraud are exclusively directed against the respondent No. 2, who is the full blood brother of the donor and two other brothers namely, Bidhan Chandra Sen and Biresh Sen who attested the deeds of gift as the witness. Even it has been asserted that their mother, respondent No. 4 was not apprised nor was she asked to attest the deeds of gift as the witness. Moreover, it has been asserted that the donor had without making any arrangement for maintenance of his wife and the plaintiffs purportedly executed the questioned deeds of gift.

3. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed a joint written statement controverting the allegations made in the plaint and stated that on contemplating the uncertainty of his life, the donor had executed the deeds of gift in favour of the respondent No. 1 as he was the only male member in his family and was competent to take responsibility of maintenance of his family. The respondent No. 1 at such age had also looked after the property of his father and on consultation with respondent No. 4, his father, the donor had executed the deeds of gift on 10.03.1986 appearing in the District Sub Registry and in witness of his three brothers as stated. After death of his father the respondent No. 1 had taken the responsibility of maintenance of his mother and sisters and arranged marriage of his sisters after selling out some parts of the land described in the in the first schedule. But after some times the appellant and the respondents No. 3 & 4 started pressurizing the respondent No. 1 to give them huge amount of money, on umpteen occasions. After selling out the land he had paid a huge sum to the respondent No. 4. For purpose of having the factual prospective of the case, it may be mentioned that for the plaintiffs 6(six) witnesses including the appellant and the respondent No. 4 were adduced along with 7(seven) documents including the mutation report (Exbt. 1), the questioned deeds of gift dated 20.03.1986 (Exbt. 3, 4 & 5), a certificate in proof of age of the respondent No. 1 (Exbt. 7) whereas the respondent No. 1 adduced 3(three) witnesses. Apart from examining him, the respondent No. 1 examined the respondent N