JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 66 of 1989 which was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession with respect to the suit premises and for other ancillary reliefs, including permanent injunction. 4. The said title suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif-I, Munger vide his judgment and decree dated 29.9.1999. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, defendant no. 1 filed Title Appeal No. 28 of 1999 which was allowed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Munger vide his judgment and decree dated 25.7.2005. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it appears to be not in dispute that the suit property was the personal property of Budhu Bind who transferred the same by registered deed of gift dated 3.8.1921 (Ext.-2) to Ranglal Bind, who is the predecessor of the plaintiffs, and hence both the learned courts below came to concurrent finding on the basis of admission of both the parties with regard to genuineness of the deed of gift, that the said deed of gift was valid and genuine. 6. The point of contention between the parties is the registered sale deed dated 10.12.1921/8.12.1921 (Ext.-D) executed by Ranglal Bind with respect to the suit land in favour of Darshan Bind, who was the predecessor of defendant no. 1. The contention of the plaintiffs has throughout been that the said sale deed (Ext.-D) was a forged and fabricated document conferring no right, title, interest and possession upon Darshan Bind, whereas defendant 1st Party relied upon the sale deed (Ext.-D) claiming that it was a legal and valid document which conferred full right, title, interest and possession on Darshan Bind who came in possession thereof and after him the suit property remained in possession of his heirs, including the defendants. 7. 7. Although, learned trial court discarded the said sale deed (Ext.-D), but the learned court of appeal below after considering the pleadings and documents of the parties came to the specific conclusion that on perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, it transpires that no document has been produced by them to show that the aforesaid registered sale deed (Ext.-D) was a forged and fabricated document. It was also found that registered deeds of 1983 and 1977 (Exts.-1 and 1/a) were not with respect to the suit land, whereas the deed of gift dated 3.8.1981 (Ext.-2) was the basis of the sale deed Ext.-D, Ext.-3 was the report of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner and Ext-4, Ext.-5 and Ext.-5/a were the sketch maps, Ext.-6 was the order-sheet of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner and Ext.-7 was Kabuliat none of which could throw any light with respect to the genuineness of the registered sale deed Ext.-D. 8. On the other hand, learned court of appeal below specifically found that rent receipts (Ext.-A series), Parcha Forms (Ext-B series), irrigation receipts (Ext.-B/ 2) and Parcha Form (Ext.-C) alongwith he certified copy of survey khatian (Ext.-G series) and the rent receipt issued by the Ex-Landlord (Ext.-I) clearly supported the claim of the defendants with regard to registered sale deed (Ext.-D) and also proved that it was executed and was acted upon. In the said circumstances, the learned court of appeal below was quite justified in holding that after execution of the deed of gift by Budhu Bind in favour of Ranglal Bind, the said Ranglal Bind fell in the need of money and executed a registered sale deed (Ext.-D) in the month of December, 1921. The learned court of appeal below also found that from perusal of the said certified copy of the registered sale deed (Ext.-D) it has been specifically mentioned that said Ranglal Bind delivered the possession of the suit land to Darshan Bind after taking consideration money and there was no lacuna in the execution of the sale deed which was legal and valid document. 9. The learned court of appeal below arrived at the specific finding of fact that defendant no. 9. The learned court of appeal below arrived at the specific finding of fact that defendant no. 1 Ram Rati Mandal was the grandson of Darshan Bind who after registered sale deed (Ext.-D) acquired title over the suit land and executed registered deed of Kabuliat in favour of ex-landlord for getting rent receipts from him (Ext.-7) and thereafter the ex-landlord admitted the title and possession of the said Darshan Bind and granted rent receipts in his favour (Ext.-I series). The learned court of appeal below also found that there were sufficient evidence, both oral and documentary, to prove that thereafter the property remained in possession of the family and subsequently defendant no. 1 has been in possession of the suit land. 10. The facts discussed in the said judgment clearly established that the evidence clearly proved right, title, interest and possession of defendant no. 1 over the suit land. It was also rightly held by the learned court of appeal below that after the execution of the registered sale deed (Ext.-D), the descendants of the vendor, namely Ranglal Bind had no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and hence the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land cannot be legally allowed and the learned trial court had wrongly decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiffs vide his judgment and decree which was clearly against the weight of evidence. 11. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.