1) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ defendant under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/2002 dated 12.11.2003, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2000 dated 28.9.2001 were set aside.

2) This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 30.4.2004 on following substantial question of law :-

• Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court on the point that the sale-deed dated 17.10.1986, executed in favour of the appellant Deenanath was not genuine ?

3) The plaintiff namely Durga Prasad instituted a civil suit seeking therein declaration of title and permanent injunction. The relief of declaration was sought to the effect that sale deed dated 17.10.1986 executed by Ghurbigani Bai be declared null and void inter-alia on the ground that suit property was exclusive property of Ram Prasad, the uncle of the plaintiff who was married to Ghurbigani Bai and was survived by three daughters. Plaintiff pleaded that during lifetime, Ghurbigani Bai executed will-deed in his favor on 10.10.1986 in presence of two attesting witnesses namely Jadnath and Ramkailash. He further pleaded that Ghurbigani Bai died ten years prior to filing of civil suit but the suit property was in his possession and when the children of plaintiff became major, he approached the defendant, who was cultivating the property on his dictation. Plaintiff also pleaded that the defendant refused to hand over the property and stated that suit property was sold by Ghurbigani Bai to defendant through registered sale-deed dated 17.10.1986. It was also pleaded that Ghurbigani Bai never executed any sale-deed in favor of defendant and hence the suit claiming the relief of declaration and permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiff.

4) The original defendant namely Deenanath filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. Defendant stated that he carried out the last rites of Ghurbigani Bai, who executed a registered sale-deed in his favor on 17.10.1986 in presence of witnesses. Defendant further stated that he sold part of the suit property to Vishwanath Prasad Gupta in the year 1995.

5) Learned trial court framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that the sale-deed dated 17.10.1986 being a registered document is admissible in evidence and its genuineness cannot be doubted and plaintiff failed to prove the said document to be a forged one. Plaintiff preferred first appeal and learned first appellate court decreed the suit holding that sale-deed appears to be suspicious as the defendant failed to establish that Ghurbigani Bai was in dire need of money and factum of payment of consideration to Ghurbigani Bai in presence of witnesses remains unproved.

6) Ms. Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant submits that defendant examined himself as (DW1) and Birkeshwar Prasad Gupta as (DW/2), who was one of attesting witness to sale-deed dated 17.10.1986 and he proved due execution of sale-deed and payment of consideration to Ghurbigani Bai. She further submits that as sale-deed is a registered document, learned first appellate court ought to have considered its validity and veracity. She prays to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate court.

7) There is no representation on behalf of respondent/ plaintiff despite service of notice.

8) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

9) A careful perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial court would reveal that will-deed dated 10.10.1986 was found to be proved as plaintiff examined it