IMPORTANT POINT
Once it is found that registered gift deed duly proved as per provision of S. 65 of Evidence Act, then only question of conveyance of title through registered gift deed would arise.

N. Chaudhury, J.—The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession with a part of suit land and recovery of possession over the Schedule-S land was dismissed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 88 of 1998. Title Appeal No. 29 of 2003 preferred in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi, was dismissed against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, the plaintiffs have approached this Court.

2. The plaintiffs Chandra Sakhi Singha and her father Moniraj Singh instituted Title Suit No. 88 of 1998 in the Court of learned Junior Division No. 1 at Hailakandi stating that Binodini Singha, the grandmother of the plaintiff No. 1 being owner in possession of the suit land measuring 7 Bighas 18 Kathas 12 Chataks gifted the same to the plaintiff No. 1 on 8.1.1983 by a gift deed which was registered on 10.1.1983 and handed over vacant possession. The plaintiff No.1 claimed to have accepted the deed and managed the same through her grand-father Subal Singha who is none other than the husband of the donor and when Subal Singha died in the year 1993, Plaintiff No.2 being father of the plaintiff No. 1 was looking after the gifted property. Binodini Singha died in the year 1997 and thereafter, defendant No.1 having entered into conspiracy with others sought to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Schedule 1 and 2 land, Being compelled, the plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest and possession thereof. It is stated that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs were dispossessed from Schedule 3 land on 5.1.1999 and so, by making amendment of the plaint, prayer for recovery of Khas possession from this land was also prayed.

3. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement and thereby, not only denied the claim made by the plaintiffs but also filed a counter-claim stating that the original owner never executed any sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 as claimed and that the property devolved equally on all the legal heirs of Binodini Singha. Even in her lifetime. the plaintiff No.2 raised claim of gift in favour of the plaintiff No.1 whereupon village Vichar was held, when Binodini herself denied of having made any gift and that she expressed her desire of distributing her property in favour of her legal heirs. However, in due honour to the intention of Binodini of distributing her land in favour of all her legal heirs, 2 Kedars of land was given to the plaintiff No.1 for her future maintenance while all her daughters were also allotted equal amount of land for the purpose. The remaining land, however, was equally distributed between the defendants No.1 and 2 who are the two sons of Binodini. The whole property of Binodini, therefore. was mutually partitioned. By filing counter claim, the defendants made a prayer for declaring the gift deed as fraudulent and forged and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Defendants No. 3 to 6 filed separate written statement and supported the contesting defendant No.1. The ‘defendant No. 2 died during pendency of the suit and his name was strike off from the array of parties. Upon pleadings of the parties learned Court below framed as many as 7 issued as follows :

(1) Is there any cause of action of the suit?

(2) Is the suit bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get khas possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants therefrom?

(5) Whether the registered deed No. 109 dated 10.1.1983 is forged document?

(6) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to get in the suit?

(7) Whether the contesting defendants are entitled to get any relief in respect of their counter-claim?

5. The plaintiffs examined 5 witnesses and exh