1. This second appeal filed by the plaintiff was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law:

" (1) Whether the delivery of possession of the property is a condition for the sale within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, when such sale has been affected by a registered deed of sale (Exhibit-2) ?

(2) Whether the sale deed, Exhibit-2 being a registered document, the presumption can be drawn about the due execution of such sale deed as well as the contents of the same?

2. The plaintiff filed the Title Suit No.109/2005 for ejectment of the defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased 1 katha 3 lechas of land covered by PP No.231 (New) 108 (Old) and Dag no.522 (Part) situated at Gabharupathar, Dibrugarh with an old pucca house consisting of 7 rooms by registered sale deed No.2522/1999 from the defendant No.1 and took possession thereof. Later on, the defendant No.1 was inducted as tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- with effect from 10.07.2002 and subsequently the tenancy agreement was renewed from time to time. When the plaintiff applied for mutation of the holding in respect of the suit premises, the defendant No.1 raised an objection before the Vice Chairman Municipal Board on 01.08.2005, stating, that the plaintiff did not pay full consideration in respect of the sale deed which was executed by her in the year 1999. The plaintiff further stated that taking advantage of being in occupation of the suit premises as tenant, the defendant raised false plea and also failed to pay the rent and thereby became defaulter. The defendant also sub-let a portion of the suit premises to the defendant No.2. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of defaulter and sub-letting.

3. Besides denial of the averment of the plaint, the pleaded case of the defendant No.1 was that she did not sell the suit premises to the plaintiff. The specific case of the defendant No.1 was that she was an old ailing lady of 74 years of age having no issue. The plaintiff used to visit her and help her in drawing pension etc. On the pretext of requirement for drawing her pension, the plaintiff took signatures of the defendant No.1 on some blank papers. The defendant stated that the plaintiff by obtaining signatures of the defendant No.1 on blank papers and taking advantage of her old age cheated the defendant No.1. The defendants also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the allegation of non-payment of rent.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues :

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

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in law and facts?

3. Whether the defendant No.1 sold the suit premises to the plaintiff?

4. Whether the defendant No.1 is a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises?

5. Whether the defendant No.1 has been defaulter to pay the rent of the suit premises since February, 2005?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for?

7. Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief/reliefs?

5. After hearing both the sides, learned Munsiff dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, also stood dismissed.

6. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the instant second appeal.

7. Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent were heard.

8. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Manmatha Ranjan Trivedi Vs. Gopal Krishna T.E. Co. (P) Ltd & Ors reported in 2006 (Supp) GLT 718 contended that the findings of the learned Courts below, that title to the suit property did not pass by the registered sale deed for want of delivery of possession was illegal and erroneous. The contention of the learned counsel fo