Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 16th September, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Title Appeal No. 42 of 2015 affirming the judgement and decree dated 11th September, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No. 101 of 2012 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.
(2.) Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not.
(3.) The plaintiff/appellant claims that by virtue of a Patta executed by the State in favour of him along with another gentleman, they became the owners of the suit property. The plaintiff/appellant further claims that he took a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the defendant/respondent and on request of the defendant, he went to the office of the Sub-Registrar for execution of a confirmatory deed acknowledging acceptance of the loan from the defendant. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant, instead of getting such a confirmatory deed executed, made the plaintiff execute a deed which subsequently appeared to him as a deed of lease which he never intended to execute. Since such execution was caused to have been made by the plaintiff on misrepresentation about the nature of the deed by the defendant, the plaintiff claims that the said deed is the product of fraud and as such, by execution and registration of the said deed, no interest was created in favour of the defendant in respect of the land in question.;