- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 30th July, 2014 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Title Appeal No. 66 of 1997 reversing the judgement and decree dated 28th August, 1996 passed by the Learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Basirhat, North 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 93 of 1990, at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants. Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or not.
(2.) Here is the case where we find that the original plaintiff being the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein filed a suit for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property by virtue of his purchase of the suit land from the defendant no.3 viz. Bhola Baidya. The proforma defendants are the substituted heirs of the said Bhola Baidya. He also claimed incidental reliefs in the said suit. The defendant no.1 contested the said suit by filing written statement making a rival claim of ownership in respect of the suit property by virtue of his purchase from the said Bhola Baidya.
(3.) Admittedly, Bhola Baidya was the owner of the suit property. Both the parties are claiming title through Bhola Baidya. Both the parties are claiming title by virtue of their purchase of the suit land through registered sale deeds both executed by Bhola Baidya. One of such sale deeds was executed in favour of the plaintiff and the other one was executed in favour of the defendant no.1. The deed which was executed by the said Bhola Baidya in favour of the defendant no.1, was earlier in point of time than that of the deed which was executed by the said Bhola Baidya in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deed in favour of the defendant no.1 was executed on 4th May, 1990. The same was registered on 18th May, 1990. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was executed on 11th May, 1990 and the same was registered on 15th May, 1990. The parties led evidence in respect of their respective contentions in the said suit. Bhola Baidya, the defendant no.3 was also examined in the said suit. Though he stated that he did not transfer the suit property in favour of the defendant no.1 but he said that the deed which was prepared by the defendant no.1, was executed by him. He further stated that as per instruction of the defendant no.1, he went to the Registration Office and registered the deed in favour of the defendant no.1 on acceptance of a sum of Rs.1500/- from the defendant no.1. He further stated that he couldn't remember whether the said deed was executed by misrepresentation or not.;