BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 2nd June, 1977 passed by the District Judge, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No. 43/73 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30th January, 1973 passed by the Munsif 1st Court at Berhampur in Title Suit No. 153/71 whereunder the plaintiffs suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession was decreed. The brief scenario of the case leading to this appeal is stated herebelow ( 2 ) ). The respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed the suit in T. S. 153/71 against the appellants who were the contesting defendants along with other proforma defendants for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties, confirmation of possession or in the alternative if the Court finds that the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit properties, then to recover possession from the defendants after evicting them therefrom. ( 3 ) IT is case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties had originally belonged to one Durga Charan Mondal. During his life time he had gifted away the suit land to his daughter's son Rasik. Basuki, the mother of Rasik was the only daughter of Durga Charan. Durga Charan died leaving behind his only surviving heiress namely his daughter Basuki. Basuki died shortly after the death of her father. Thus, Rasik became the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of the deed of gift and also by inheritance through his mother. After having acquired the suit land from Durga Charan, Rasik's name also was duly recorded in the C. S. and R. S. record of rights. He gifted the suit land to his wife Bhagabati. Both, Rasik and Bhagabati executed a deed of gift of the suit land in favour of the defendants 14 to 17 on 7-4-1956 who had accepted the same and continued to be in possession over the suit land. Those defendants again sold the suit (land) to the plaintiff under different kobalas and ever since the purchase the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. Those defendants again sold the suit (land) to the plaintiff under different kobalas and ever since the purchase the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. It has been alleged, inter alia, that the defendants 1 and 2 in collusion with Kulda got a sale deed executed in their names and on the basis of that document with the help and assistance of the defendants 3 to 7 had threatened to disturb the plaintiff's possession/ ( 4 ) THE defendants 1 to 5 stated, interalia, in their written statement that it is undoubtedly true that the Durga Charan was the previous owner of the suit land but there was no semblance of truth that the Durga Charan had executed any gift deed in favour of Rasik and the said defendants 14 to 17 also executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. All 1 those documents are the out-come of fraud and collusion only to defeat the rightful claim of the other daughters of Durga Charan. It is stated that Durga Charan died leaving behind 4 daughters i. e. Basuki, Dasi, Sarada and Kulda. Of those 4 daughters, Basuki died first followed by Dasi and Sarada. So by survivorship, it was Kulda who became the sole owner of the suit land. Thus, those defendants had purchased from Kulda as well as from the sons and grandsons of Dasi. ( 5 ) THE learned Munsif off careful consideration of the evidence placed before him held that the defendants were unable to prove title of their vendor namely, Kulda, Muchless, her possession over the suit land. He further observed that though the plaintiffs had failed to produce the gift deed purported to have been executed in favour of Rasik by Durga Charan, yet Rasik having acquired property otherwise by inheritance the non-production of gift deed became inconsequential to the suit. From further findings of the learned Munsif it emerges that the defendants had failed to produce any reliable, credible and trustworthy evidence to rebut the presumption arising front the records of right. Therefore, the statutory presumption regarding entry in the record of rights would also go to establish that the plaintiff's vendor, namely, Rasik was the rightful owner of the suit property. Therefore, the statutory presumption regarding entry in the record of rights would also go to establish that the plaintiff's vendor, namely, Rasik was the rightful owner of the suit property. Since the plaintiffs failed to prove evidence regarding possession of unimpeachable character, the prayer for confirmation of possession was however, negatived but of course, the learned Munsif was inclined to grant recovery of possession on account of plaintiffs having proved their title over the suit land. The appellate Court while affirming the findings of the learned Munsif had however, disagreed with the observations that the testimony of D. W. 5 and 7 stood superior to that of plaintiffs evidence relating to 2nd marriage of Dasi, Sarada and Kulda's mother with Durga. It was further observed that the sale deed through which the contesting defendants attempted to acquire title having not been supported by consideration, their claim was bound to be spurned. Accordingly, their appeal was also equally dismissed. ( 6 ) MR. Sattar, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, has advanced the contentions that in this case the plaintiffs having admitted that Kulda and Dasi were stepdaughters of Durga through 'niga Marriage' with their mother, the learned Courts below should not have further asked defendant to prove the relationship of Kulda and Dasi with Durga. It is further urged that it is preposterous to contend that 'niga Marriage' is permissible in Hindu Law Thus, Kulda and Dasi has to be taken as the daughters of Durga. The trial Court placed more reliance on the testimony of D. W. 5 and 7, therefore, the appellate Court should not have easily discarded their statement by placing more credibility on the text of the deposition of P. W. 5 and 7 regarding the relationship of Kulda and Dasi. The deed of gift alleged to have been produced by the plaintiffs, the learned trial Court should have viewed the plaintiffs' case with a tinged glass. " ( 7 ) MR. Sengupta, the learned senior Advocate appearing for the plantiffs-respondents, has however, strongly urged by repelling the contention of the appellants that the respondents could not have produced better negative evidence except denial of the fact that Dasi and Kulda were the daughters of Durga. " ( 7 ) MR. Sengupta, the learned senior Advocate appearing for the plantiffs-respondents, has however, strongly urged by repelling the contention of the appellants that the respondents could not have produced better negative evidence except denial of the fact that Dasi and Kulda were the daughters of Durga. The Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court having come to the logical conclusion, after proper scrutiny of the evidence that Kulda vis-a-via the defendants had no title over the suit properties, this Court while hearing second appeal should not reassess their evidence and set aside the finding of final Court of fact. The burden to prove lay on the appellants to establish that Dasi, Sarda and Kulda were the daughters of Durga which they have signally failed to prove in this case. Therefore, the conclusion of the appellate Court need not be disturbed. ( 8 ) THE principal question which arises in this case is whether the mother of Dasi Kulda was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Durga. It is decided in affirmative, necessary consequence would follow that the vendors of this contesting defendants had an interest over the properties which they could 2 convey it in their favour. On the other hand, if it is held in negative, then, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are bound to be affirmed. ( 9 ) FOLLOWING facts have not been disputed by either party. ( 10 ) THAT the properties originally belonged to Durga Charan. Basuki was the daughter of Durga Charan whose Son was Rasik. Thus, Rasik apart from claiming the property under the gift deed purported to have been executed by Durga Charan could also acquire the same by inheritance as his heir in case the appellants vendor are held to have no relationship with Durga Charan. The suit properties was recorded m the name of Rasik in the R. S. and C. S. Khatian vide Ext. 6 and 6a. The plaintiffs have also claimed that Rasik during his life time had been exercising his ownership and sold a portion of properties which had been devolved upon him after the demise of Durga Charan in the 1950 vide Ext. 3. As matter of fact, in the record of right the land Sold to Aksar, Ali stood recorded in his name. The plaintiffs have also claimed that Rasik during his life time had been exercising his ownership and sold a portion of properties which had been devolved upon him after the demise of Durga Charan in the 1950 vide Ext. 3. As matter of fact, in the record of right the land Sold to Aksar, Ali stood recorded in his name. Neither the defendants nor their predecessors had made any attempt to take Steps for Setting aside the entry till the date of the Suit. In this case, they challenged the entry in the record of rights, the entire burden lay on them to establish by placing evidence of unimpeachable character that those entries were incorrect and erroneous. In this case, it is, however, held by both the courts below that the appellants had Signally failed to lead any credible evidence to destroy the presumption arising from the record of rights prepared in due discharge of the official duty. Therefore, Since both the Courts have concurrently held that the defendants have utterly been unsuccessful in establishing about the wrong entry purportedly made in favour of Rasik, it would be extremely difficult to disturb Such findings here. ( 11 ) THE learned trial Court had also discussed the import of the Ext. B Series and was unwilling to place reliance on them inasmuch as the amount of rent was only paid on behalf of Rasik, the recorded owner. Both the Courts below have also discussed about the possession and Specifically held that the defend ants have failed to prove possession over the suit land, equally, the plaintiffs have proved their title and the suit was for recovery of possession on the basis of title, the Courts below had, therefore, allowed the prayer for recovery of possession. The plaintiffs claimed their title under the gifted deed Ext. 1 and also under the sale deed purported to have been purchased from defendants 14 to 17 on 10-101966. The deed of purchase has been proved vide Ext. 3. Thus, while deciding the competitive title between the plaintiffs vis-a-vis the defendants, the evidence of the plaintiffs was found to be more reliable credible and trust-worthy than that of the defendants. ( 12 ) THE trial Court without least hesitation had however, held against the defendants that their sale deed was not supported by consideration which seemed to be a fake transaction. ( 12 ) THE trial Court without least hesitation had however, held against the defendants that their sale deed was not supported by consideration which seemed to be a fake transaction. To support this stand the trial Court has further found that had those sale deeds been voluntary transaction of sale the defendants could not have taken/ recourse to Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act. Those were the formidable circumstances against the defendants which actuated both the Courts below to arrive at such conclusion that the documents under which they claimed title was devoid of consideration. ( 13 ) MR. Sattar, the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants, has argued with strong intensity of conviction that the Trial Court in this case has found that the evidence of D. W. 5 and 7 are more convicting than that of the evidence of P. W. 5 and 7 regarding the relationship of Kulda, Dasi and Sarada with deceased Durga as his daughters. Therefore, the appellate Court without closely scrutinising the evidence has disagreed with the observation of the learned trial Court regarding the relationship of Durga with Kulda, Dasi and Sarada, Though this Court while hearing second appeal need not disturb the findings of final Court of fact, yet, when it has been brought to the notice that the evidence of P. W. 5 and 7 stands on a better footing than that of P. W. 5 and 7. I had to examine the contention of the appellant. P. W. 5 and 7 Sudev Mondal and Shibu Mondal claimed to be the relation of 3 Durga. From their evidence nothing turnsout that Durga had four daughters. D. W. 5 Raimoti Mollani claimed to be relation of Durga. From the cross-examination it appears that she was not able even to state when her mother-in-law died. Therefore from this statement, the learned Munsif had expressed in his findings that D. W. 5 was no way connected with the family of Durga. D. W. 7, Ganesh Ch. Mondal, also claimed that Durga had only one wife. Therefore, the claim of defendants Durga had three other daughters through 'niga Marriage' was belied by the evidence of P. W. 7. ( 14 ) IN this case, undisputedly, the defendants have failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that Durga Charan had three daughters, Kulda, Dasi, Sarada besides Basuki. Mondal, also claimed that Durga had only one wife. Therefore, the claim of defendants Durga had three other daughters through 'niga Marriage' was belied by the evidence of P. W. 7. ( 14 ) IN this case, undisputedly, the defendants have failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that Durga Charan had three daughters, Kulda, Dasi, Sarada besides Basuki. The burden lies undoubtedly upon the appellants to establish such fact, both the Courts concurrently held that the defendants failed to produce any credible evidence from which it could raise an inference that Durga had four daughters through both the wives. Even after the scrutiny of evidence it is found that the appellants could not prove such fact in issue. Therefore, under the above circumstances it cannot be said that the Judgments of both the Courts have suffered from any vulnerability so as to be interfered with their findings. ( 15 ) IN the result, agreeing with the findings of the learned Courts below I notice that the appellants having not proved their case in establishing by cogent, clear and unequivocal evidence that Durga had four daughters. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Appeal dismissed.