The burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud or forgery, and the presumption of genuineness of registered documents prevails in the absence of convincing evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against judgment and decree dated 30.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No. 17 of 2004, whereunder the learned Additional District Judge upheld judgment and decree dated 30.07.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Title Suit No. 09(Partition) of 2003. The second appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the trial Court and the appellate Court.

2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. G.K. Nama for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. S. Bhattacharji for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7. None appeared for the other respondents.

3. The second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:--

"1. Whether the allegation of forgery and fraud in execution of sale deed can be decided by the Civil Court without verification of the thumb impression by expert?"

4. The appellant, Smti. Sukumari Nath and pro-respondent Nos. 12 and 13, Smt. Kusumbala Nath and Smt. Promodini Nath, all as plaintiffs (hereinafter mentioned as 'plaintiffs'), instituted Title Suit No. 09(Partition) of 2003 against the defendant-respondents (hereinafter mentioned as 'defendants') seeking partition of the suit land measuring 4.57 acres described in Ist Schedule of the plaint and further seeking declaration that registered sale deed No. 1-3142 dated 14.05.1990 and registered sale deed No. 1-3141 dated 14.05.1990 as illegal, fraudulent, collusive and are not binding on the plaintiffs.

5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short fact leading to the litigation is that Sanatan Nath, father of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 died intestate on 15.03.1987 leaving behind his wife Baradabala Devi and the plaintiffs as well as defendant No. 6 as four daughters and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as three sons. Baradabala Devi died on 06.12.2001 and so, the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 inherited the property left by Sanatan Nath. The plaintiffs contended that they had good relation with their brothers and that they claimed partition of the land left by their father and in the year 1990 their brothers proposing an amicable partition obtained their signatures and thumb impressions in blank stamp paper and in October, 2002 they came to learn that their brothers, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 created some fraudulent sale deed with the blank stamp papers and get it registered. They further stated that they had never attended the Sub-Registrar Office, Dharmanagar and did not execute any sale deed in favour of their brothers, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as defendant No. 4. They obtained certified copy of the sale deeds and thereafter filed the suit seeking declaration of sale deed No. 1-3141 dated 14.05.1990 and sale deed No. 1-3142 dated 14.05.1990 as illegal, void and has no binding effect on the plaintiffs and further prayed for partition of the suit land described in Ist Schedule of the plaint.

6. The defendants contested the case by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the plaintiffs, defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and their deceased mother, Baradabala Devi all executed sale deed No. 1-3141 dated 14.05.1990 and thereby sold out 19 Gandas 3 Karas of land to defendant No. 4 and they also sold out 17 satak and 19 satak of land in favour of Smt. Jaladini Nath, defendant No. 5(b). By executing sale deed No. 1-3142 dated 14.05.1990, the plaintiffs, their sister, defendant No. 6 and their mother sold out their shares of the land inherited by them in favour of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The plaintiffs brought the suit unnecessarily having no right, title and interest in the land described in Ist Schedule of the plaint and hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The trial Court considered the pleadings of the parties and framed six issues, namely :

"I. Is the suit maintainable in its p