This first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.90 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Nagaon, Assam in Title Suit No.30 of 1982. By the impugned judgment and decree the learned Assistant District Judge decreed the suit. Hence this first appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are quoted below from the judgment of the learned Assistant District Judge : "This case for the plaintiff, in brief, is that the entire land of Dag No.211 covered by Periodic Patta No. 149 originally owned by Seikh Md Hussain. The area of the entire dag was 20 bighas, 18 lechas. Ultimately in the settlement of 1957-58 and 1968-69,-the old dag was converted into different dags The suit land appertains to Dag No.274 under Periodic Patta No.52. The description of the suit land has been well mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint. Late Seikh Md Hussain gifted the entire dag to late Ishab Ali, the predecessor in interest of the present plaintiffs, Asrab Ali, the defendant No. 1, the defendant No.2, Surat Ali and late Mosrab Ali, the predecessor in interest of defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 8 by a registered gift deed dated 1.8.33. Accordingly all the four donees of the gift deed got equal share to the tune of IB 2K 13L. The donees accepted the gift and possessed their respective shares by amicable partition. Late Seikh Md Hussain again gifted 7B 5K 16L of land of the said Dag No.211 to late Abdul Rajek, father of principal defendant No.12 and IB 3K 7L of the said dag to his daughter Chand Bhanu by a separate deed of gift. Late Md. Hussain also gifted 5 bighas of land of the dag under reference to his wife Safura Khatoon. In this way Seikh Md Hussain bequathed his entire land of Dag No.211 to the aforesaid inheritors. Chand Bhanu died about 44 years ago leaving his heirs Abdul Halem and Abdul Barek while Abdul Barel and Abdul Halem were in possession of the land inherited from mother, they sold the land in favour of the original plaintiff late Ishab Ali by registered sale deed in the year 1945. The possession thereof was duly delivered in favour of late Ishab Ali. This land was also mutated in the name of late Ishab Ali. The possession thereof was duly delivered in favour of late Ishab Ali. This land was also mutated in the name of late Ishab Ali. Similarly Safura Khatoon was possessing 5 bighas of land got by way of gift from her husband late Seikh Md Hussain. She also ultimately transferred her right, title, interest and possession in respect of 5 bighas to late Ishab Ali by a registered gift deed on 13.12.43. In this way late Ishab Ali, predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs got the share of Chand Bhanu and Safura Khatoon by two registered deeds. Thus Ishab Ali had acquired 7B 3K 16L including his own share in Dag No.274 and thus became the owner and possessor of the said 7B 3K 16L of land. Out of the said land late Ishab Ali sold IB 15L of land of the dag under reference to principal defendant Nos.36, 38, 39 and 40 and as a result the remaining land to the tune of 6 bighas and odd had been possessing without any distrubance by late Ishab Ali. The defendant Nos.l and 2 late Masrob Ali the predecessor in interest of the defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 sold their respective share in Dag No.274 to principal defendant Nos. 19,41,42,44, 53 and 56 in different dates by registered sale deeds. As such, the principal defendant have no right, title and interest over the suit land. While late Ishab Ali, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff had been possessing the suit land the principal defendants in a body attempted to trespass the land described in the Shedule Ka of the plaint and tried to construct a temporary. As a result, there was an apprehension of breach of peace late Ishab Ali accordingly filed a criminal case under section 145/146 CrPC. The criminal proceeding was accordingly registered as MR Case No. 130 of 1981 and the said proceeding is now stayed. The main defendants denied the right, title and interest of the other land described in Schedule Ka 2, Ka 3 and Ka 4. The plaintiff also came to know that the defendant Nos.l, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 created some fraudulent deeds without consideration in favour of the defendant Nos.9, 10 and 11. During the pendency of the suit, the aforesaid defendants made some fraudulent sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. UKa, llKha, UGa, HUnga, 1 ICha and 11 Chha. The plaintiff also came to know that the defendant Nos.l, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 created some fraudulent deeds without consideration in favour of the defendant Nos.9, 10 and 11. During the pendency of the suit, the aforesaid defendants made some fraudulent sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. UKa, llKha, UGa, HUnga, 1 ICha and 11 Chha. As such the plaintiff was compelled to file this suit praying inter alia for a declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit land and confirmation of their possession. The suit was resisted by the defendants. Defendant Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 filed a joint written statement. The defendant No. 9 submitted a separate written statement while defendant No 11 Ka, 11 Kha, 11 Ga, and 11 Gha filed a joint written statement. According to the main defendant Nos. 1,2,3,4, 5 and 8 the suit has got no cause of action and the same is not maintainable. It is averred that the suit is bad for non joinder of parties. They denied the averments made in the plaint. According to them the original owner of the entire property late Md. Hussain who had 2 sons Abdul Wahed and Abdul Rajek and both the sons dies during his life time. After the death of late Md. Hussain his properties devolved on main defendant Nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 and Ishab Ali. It is also averred that late Ashab Ali, predecessor in interest of the plaintiff sold his share. The suit land had been possessed by the main defendants. The gift deeds as mentioned by the plaintiffs are all fraudulent deeds. The defendant No.9 in his written statement averred that he purchased 2 kathas of land from defendant Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 and 8 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- by a registered sale deed on 5.2.82 while defendant Nos. 10 and 11 also averred that they purchased 2 kathas and odd land from defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 8 on 7.6.82 by a registered deed for a consideration of Rs. 19,000/-. Similarly defendant Nos. 11 Ka, 11 Kha and 11 Ga also contended that they also purchased the land from the defendant Nos.l and.3 by a registered deed dated 6.4.84. The other defendants claimed their right from the defendant Nos.l, 2, 3,4 and 5." 3. As many as 8 issues were framed by the learned Assistant District Judge. 19,000/-. Similarly defendant Nos. 11 Ka, 11 Kha and 11 Ga also contended that they also purchased the land from the defendant Nos.l and.3 by a registered deed dated 6.4.84. The other defendants claimed their right from the defendant Nos.l, 2, 3,4 and 5." 3. As many as 8 issues were framed by the learned Assistant District Judge. Only one issue is relevant for the disposal of this first appeal, that is, issue No.7 which reads as follows : "issue No.7 : Whether the plaintiff have got right, title and interest over the suit land?" 4. In the suit as many as 7 witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and documents were filed and exhibited by the plaintiff, but no oral evidence was adduced by the defendants. So the pleas taken up by them in their written statement remains to be substantiated by the evidence of the defendants. They mainly depended on the pleas of admission or other circumstances as may arise from the deposition made by the plaintiff or from the documents produced by the plaintiff. The learned Judge took up Issue No.7 and found as follows : "That one Md Hussain was the original owner of the entire suit property." 5. The admitted position in the suit is that the original owner of the entire suit property executed Exhibits 4 to 10 which are the registered deed of gift. Only Exhibits 1 and 2 are the unregistered deed of gift. By Ext. 1 one Md Hussain the original owner donated 5 bighas of land to his wife Mustt Safura Khatoon. Safura1 Khatoon again donated this land to late Ishab AH, who has sold it by Ext.5 the land mentioned in Schedule Kha of the plaint. Again late Seikh Md. Hussain gifted 1 bighas 3 kathas 7 lechas of land to his daughter Chand Banu by an unregistered deed of gift and Chand Banu died leaving behind two sons, namely, Abdul Halem and Abdul Baker, but they sold all the land by two registered sale deeds to late Ishab Ali and the possession was duly delivered to Ishab Ali, which are exhibited as Ext.7"and 8 executed by Abdul Halem and Abdul Barek. Ext. Ext. 13 is the gift deed executed in favour of late Ishab Ali and, so it was found by the learned Assistant District Judge that Ishab Ali acquired right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of the deeds of gift. Ishab Ali was examined in relation to injunction matter. Later on he died and the evidence of Ishab Ali adduced in the injunction matter was utilised subsequently in the main suit relying on section 33 of the Evidence Act inasmuch as Ishab Ali was no longer available for examination in the main suit. 6. The further contention of the defendants before the learned Assistant District Judge was that Extsl and 2 the unregistered deed of gift are collusive and fraudulent. The learned Assistant District Judge did not accept this plea and found that Exts 1, 2 and 3 are valid deed of gift and further found that three essential requisite ingredients were present in the case namely, declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession. Having found it the learned Assistant District Judge stated in his judgment that the possession of the land was with the plaintiff. Having arrived at this findings the learned Assistant District Judge decreed the suit. Three contentions put forward by the learned Advocate for the appellant, are : (i) Production of the documents namely, Exts.l, 2 and 3 before the Court at a belated stage, (ii) That the suit land was gifted by the defendants by registered deed and subsequently some portion of land was gifted by two unregistered deeds of gift and subsequent gifts cannot wipe out the earlier gifts, (iii) As per section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act it is necessary that under the Mahommedan Law in order to prove a valid gift it must be by registered deed. 7. Regarding production of document at a belated stage this matter is specifically covered under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC. Order 13 Rule 1 of the CPC provides that plaintiff is to file those documents he sues upon provided those documents are in his possession, for example, if a person sues on the basis of a promissory note, it is absolutely necessary that the plaintiff must produce that promissory note or a copy of it, because the whole suit is based on the promissory note and that is required to be filed. It is not necessary that the plaintiff, has to file the other documents at the time for the filing of the plaint. As per Amendment of 1976, the documents are to be filed before the settlement of the issues and this amendment supercedes all earlier provisos. Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC provides/casts a duty upon the party to produce all the documents before settlement of the issues in the suit, and if the Court receives them later it is to record reasons for receiving such evidence and the Court is to decide the matter in a summary manner that the document is relevant. As per Order 13 Rule 2 the Court should take a liberal view in order to decide the matter. The object of Order 13 Rule 2 provides filing of documents at a belated stage before the Court so that it can do justice to the parties. In the instant case the unregistered documents were allowed to be produced by the Court. They were introduced in evidence without any objection and marked as exhibits. Now at this belated stage the defendant cannot turn up and raise the question regarding the filing of the said documents at a belated stage. So this contention of the learned Advocate shall stand rejected. 7. The next question raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant has no legs to stand upon because the defendant is failed to prove that this is the very land which was gifted to him earlier by the plaintiff by registered deed. Though this plea was taken in the written statement it was never established by the defendant. So this contention of the learned Advocate shall also stand rejected. 8. Regarding utilising the deposition given earlier at best it can be said that the defendants did not object and in that view of the matter the statement made earlier was accepted by the Court without any objection from the defendant and at this belated stage the defendant is not entitled to raise that question. 9. Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly says that nothing in this Chapter shall affect the Rule of Mahommedan Law. That being the position, the third contention of Shri Phukan has no legs to stand upon. 10. 9. Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly says that nothing in this Chapter shall affect the Rule of Mahommedan Law. That being the position, the third contention of Shri Phukan has no legs to stand upon. 10. After perusal of the materials on record I find that the findings of possession arrived at by the learned Assistant District Judge is based on materials on record and his further findings regarding title is also correct. The learned Judge considered both oral and documentary evidence, that is, deeds of gift as well as oral evidence of possession. I have perused it and find that the finding arrived at is correct and proper. 11. In that view of the matter there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the learned Assistant District Judge, Nagaon. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. 12. I have heard Shri BK Goswami, learned Advocate for the respondents. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.