JUDGMENT : Anima Hazarika, J. 1. Having lost in both the learned courts below the appellant herein, who was one of the defendants in the suit has assailed the judgment and decree passed on 30.07.2001 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Morigaon in Title Appeal No. 3 of 2000 affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.12.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Morigaon, in Title Suit No. 17/1988 in the instant regular Appeal invoking power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code', in short). Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. At the time of admission of the appeal the court had framed the following substantial questions of law:- 1. For the suit land as alleged by the plaintiff to have been given in dowry, a substantial question of law arises whether the claim of the plaintiff is maintainable in view of the bar provided under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the provisions of Section 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1917? 2. For that the suit land having brought by the predecessor of the appellant vide registered deed No. 548 and 549 dated 06.04.1970 and having taken possession from then, a substantial question of law arises whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, inasmuch as in 1988 without assailing the validity of the sale deed? 3. 2. For that the suit land having brought by the predecessor of the appellant vide registered deed No. 548 and 549 dated 06.04.1970 and having taken possession from then, a substantial question of law arises whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, inasmuch as in 1988 without assailing the validity of the sale deed? 3. In order to answer the substantial question of law, as formulated, the relevant facts are summarized hereinbelow : The respondent herein as plaintiff on the file of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Morigaon Sub-Division has brought the suit against the defendants seeking the following reliefs:- (a) For declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule 'Ka' and for a decree of khas possession thereon, (b) For permanent injunction against the defendants so that they cannot raise any obstruction in the peaceful possession of the suit land, (c) For a decree in favour of the plaintiff if it is found that the suit land is under the possession of the plaintiff and to evict the defendants and for a decree of khas possession in favour of the plaintiff, (d) Cost of the entire suit against the defendants, and (e) For any other or further reliefs as the Court may seem fit and proper. 4. The reliefs that have been sought for in the suit rests on the following pleaded facts :- Ananda Roy Gaonburah, the father-in-law of the plaintiff Ashini Kanta Das was the original owner of a plot of land measuring 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas covering annual patta No. 7 of Dag No. 130. In the last settlement operation Dag No. was changed into 140 and Patta No. into 127. The suit land is measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 19 1/2 Lechas out of 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas situated at Khalani bill Kisam of Mouza Mayong. Smti. Prafulla Devi, the only daughter of the said Ananda Roy Gaonburah was given marriage to the plaintiff and the said plot of land was given to the plaintiff as dowry and accordingly mutated his name in the records of right. Ananda Roy Gaonburah died in the meantime. On the death of Ananda Roy Gaonburah the land was mutated in the name of his daughter Prafulla Devi. Ananda Roy Gaonburah died in the meantime. On the death of Ananda Roy Gaonburah the land was mutated in the name of his daughter Prafulla Devi. But thereafter half portion of the said land (7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas) was given to Shyam Sundar, brother of Ananda Roy and accordingly, the names of the brother along with Prafulla Devi were mutated respectively. However, the annual patta was converted to periodic patta on 18.09.1974 and periodic pattas were issued in favour of Shri Shyam Sundar and the plaintiff and half of the land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 19 1/2 Lechas out of 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas belonged to the plaintiff since there was no issue of Prafulla Devi and the rest belongs to Shyam Sundar. But on 19.08.1988 the defendants entered forcefully into the suit land and tried to dispossess the plaintiff though the defendants have no right, title and interest over the land and hence the suit seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 5. The pleaded facts set out in the plaint have been denied by the defendants taking all the pleas as made available under Order 8 of the Code contending inter alia that the plaintiff had no right over the suit land in the past and has no right thereon at present also, because the defendants have an uninterrupted and continuous possession over the suit land for the last 18 years which is adverse to the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and there is no cause of action for the suit. The defendants have disclosed the real facts in paragraph 14 of the written statements contending that the true owner and pattadar of the suit land was one Shyam Chandra Namadas who was the brother of Ananda Gaonburah. However, while Shyam Sundar Namadas possessed the patta land measuring about 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas, sold 2(two) different plots respectively to the father of defendant No. 1 (3 Bighas) Kablech Das and the defendant No. 2 (1 Bigha 2 Kathas 10 Lechas) Shri Pawan Das and delivered their possession on 06.04.1970 to them, thereby the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 possessed a total area of 4 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas. The remaining land under possession of pattadar Shyam Ch. Namadas was sold to 3rd pattadar Tarani Das and gave possession to him and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. 1 and 2 possessed a total area of 4 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas. The remaining land under possession of pattadar Shyam Ch. Namadas was sold to 3rd pattadar Tarani Das and gave possession to him and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Upon the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court had framed the following issues :- (1) Is there any cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (3) Whether the suit is undervalued and court fee is inadequate? (4) Whether the suit is barred by law of adverse possession, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? (5) Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the S/L? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get S/L (khas possession) by evicting the defendants? (7) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? During the trial, the plaintiff adduced 5 (five) witnesses and exhibited certain documents, whereas the defendants adduced 1 (one) witness and the parties to the suit cross-examined the witnesses. 7. The learned trial court has noticed the conduct of the defendants in pursuing the case. The case record would reveal that on 05.10.1996, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed fixing 22.11.1996 for evidence of DWs. But the adjournments were sought for at the instance of the defendants on the following dates viz. :- 22.11.1996 Vide Petition No. 466/96 19.12.1966 Vide Petition No. 508/96 10.01.1997 Vide Petition No. 29/1999, 31/1999 01.02.1997 Last chance was given to the defendants 20.02.1997 Submitted a list of witnesses vide Petition No.77/1997 which is not proper 20.02.1997 One D/W was examined and cross-examined. 01.03.1997 Defendants prayed Vide Petition No. 52/1997 for adducing Naren Mazumdar before their order of oral evidence. But Court could not find defendant after repeated call on that day. Thereafter from 20.02.1997 till 20.02.1999 as many as 34/35 dates have elapsed for further DWs but could not yield any result. At last on 07.01.1999, Vide Petition No. 3/1999 has sought for adjournment, which, however, was rejected by the Court fixing the suit for argument. 26.03.1999 The defendant was absent without any steps hence 20.05.1999 was fixed for ex parte hearing. But considering the Petition No. 414/1999, ex parte hearing order was set aside on 12.07.1999 imposing cost of Rs.200/- fixing 24.08.1999 for DWs. 27.09.1999 The defendants were absent without any steps. Costs not paid. 26.03.1999 The defendant was absent without any steps hence 20.05.1999 was fixed for ex parte hearing. But considering the Petition No. 414/1999, ex parte hearing order was set aside on 12.07.1999 imposing cost of Rs.200/- fixing 24.08.1999 for DWs. 27.09.1999 The defendants were absent without any steps. Costs not paid. Thereafter, the Court invoking the power under Order 17 Rule 2 (Explanation) of the Code fixed 8.12.199 for Judgment after hearing the arguments. 8. In these backdrop the case was proceeded. The learned trial Court answered the issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and the issue No. 3 in the negative. With regard to the question of adverse possession in issue No. 4, the learned trial Court believed the evidence of all the PWs and the Exts. 1, 2 and 3 wherefrom it transpires that the original pattadar of the suit land was late Ananda Roy. On the death of Ananda Roy and his wife, the entire land devolved on their daughter Prafulla Devi, who died leaving behind her husband, the present plaintiff. In absence of any heir of late Ananda Roy, the present plaintiff inherited and possessed the suit land though two criminal cases were initiated due to dispossession on 19.08.1988 against the defendants, which, however, ended in acquittal and hence the learned trial Court disbelieved the factum of adverse possession raised in the pleading and accordingly answered the issue in negative. 9. The most vital issue of the suit is issue No. 5 whereof the right, title and interest over the suit land of the plaintiff has been dealt with. The learned trial court has put emphasis on Exts. 1, 2, 3 and 4. These exhibits are land revenue receipts paid by the plaintiff. On the death of Ananda Roy, the suit land devolves on his wife who had died leaving behind their only daughter Prafulla Devi. Prafulla Devi being the only heir, she succeeded the property left by her parents. During trial, DW 1 Narendra Chandra Mazumdar has been examined and cross-examined. DW 1 has deposed that there was an oral gift relating to 1 Bigha of land in favour of him and his brother by Ananda Roy and exchange of land between Shyam Sundar and Ashini at Namghar by registered deed, however, the same could not be substantiated either by oral or any documentary evidence. DW 1 has deposed that there was an oral gift relating to 1 Bigha of land in favour of him and his brother by Ananda Roy and exchange of land between Shyam Sundar and Ashini at Namghar by registered deed, however, the same could not be substantiated either by oral or any documentary evidence. The said DW 1 in cross-examination has admitted that there was family partition between 2 (two) brothers Ananda Roy and Shyam Sundar Roy during their life time in respect of the suit land. In absence of any documentary evidence, the learned trial court answered the issue in affirmative. In view of the findings in issue No. 5, issue Nos. 6 and 7 are answered in the affirmative and accordingly decreed the suit. 10. The defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the learned appellate Court. The appellate Court dealt with the matter extensively, more particularly, relating to issue Nos. 5 and 6 and the question of adverse possession. The appellate court has held from the evidence on record that the land measuring 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas including the suit land belongs to Ananda Roy Gaonburah. The said Ananda Roy has got only one daughter, namely Smti Prafulla Devi as legal heir who was given marriage to plaintiff Shri Ashini Kanta Das PW 5 and a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas was given to each i.e. Prafulla Devi and his son-in-law Ashini Kanta Das. After the death of Ananda Roy, the rest of the plot of land was inherited by PW 5 Ashini Kanta Das and his wife Prafulla Devi. The entire plot of land subsequently inherited by the daughter of late Ananda Roy Gaonburah and accordingly mutated in her name, but after the death of Prafulla Devi, half of the land of 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas was given to the brother of late Ananda Roy Gaonburah namely Shyam Sundar Namadas and the suit land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 19 1/2 Lechas was possessed by the plaintiff. The land which was given to Shyam Sundar Namadas was sold to one Tarini Kanta Das and possession was delivered to him and accordingly mutated his name. However, the annual patta was converted into periodic patta in the name of Ashini Kanta Das and Shyam Sundar Namadas. The land which was given to Shyam Sundar Namadas was sold to one Tarini Kanta Das and possession was delivered to him and accordingly mutated his name. However, the annual patta was converted into periodic patta in the name of Ashini Kanta Das and Shyam Sundar Namadas. The plaintiff constructed 3 (three) thatched houses over the land under his possession. But on 19.08.1988 the plaintiff was dispossessed wherefor a criminal case being Mayang PS Case No. 46/1988 was initiated against the defendants. Simultaneously a complaint case being No. 716/1988 was filed in the court of Morigaon for alleged trespass. From the evidence on record it has been established that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land continuously till he was dispossessed from the suit land. The evidence of PW 5 has been fully corroborated by PW 2 Abinash Mazumdar, PW 3 Sukumar Roy, and PW 4 Phul Kumar Biswas. Furthermore, the evidence of P W 5 coupled with Exts. 1, 2, 3 and 4(1) to 4(8) clearly established that the suit land has been in possession of the plaintiff. Though the defendants claimed that they have purchased the land from Shyam Sundar Namadas but failed to produce any cogent evidence to substantiate their claim. DW 1 Narendra Ch. Mazumdar has admitted in cross-examination that there was family partition between two brothers namely Ananda Roy Gaonburah and Shyam Sundar Namadas during their lifetime in respect of the suit land. DW 1 has norther stated that 1 (one) Bigha of land of suit dag was gifted to him and to his brother by late Ananda Roy Gaonburah verbally and exchange of land of 2 bighas took place in between Shyam Sundar Namadas and Ashini Kanta Das at Namghar by an unregistered deed but they failed to produce any evidence to this effect either by oral or documentary evidence to substantiate their claim and accordingly affirmed the issue Nos. 5 and 6 as held by the learned trial Court. 11. 5 and 6 as held by the learned trial Court. 11. The appellate Court dealt with the question of adverse possession based on averments made in the written statement that they are in possession of the suit land with effect from 06.04.1970 in view of execution of 2(two) registered sale deeds, but the defendants have not come forward to prove the above factum of registered sale deed on which they claimed adverse possession and as such they came in possession over the suit land since 1970 cannot be believed and on the other hand it has clearly established from the record that the plaintiff had been in possession over the suit land till the date of dispossession on 19.08.1988 and the present suit was filed on 25.11.1988 which was within the period of limitation and accordingly negatived the plea of adverse possession as has been held by the learned trial Court thereby dismissed the appeal. 12. Now the question remained to be answered relating to the substantial question of law formulated by the court at the time of admission of the appeal. The first question of law formulated by the court relates to Dowry Prohibition Act vis-a-vis the effect of Section 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act. In view of the same, it would be appropriate to quote certain provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, because the claim of the plaintiff in the pleadings is that the land was given in dowry. Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act deals with penalty for giving or taking dowry; which reads as under:- 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,- (a) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (b) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given. 13. It has come into the evidence of PW 5 that late Ananda Roy Gaonburah has got only one daughter namely Prafulla Devi as legal heir who was given marriage to the plaintiff Ashini Kanta Das and a plot of land measuring 2 (two) Bighas was given to each i.e. Smti. Prafulla Devi and his son-in-law, PW 5 Ashini Kanta Das. But it could not be ascertained from the evidence on record that the land of 2 Bighas was given in consideration of marriage. Moreover, Section 3(2) does not envisage any penalty if the same are given to the bride or bridegroom where there were no demand at the time of marriage and therefore the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and Sections 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act would not come in the way to the claim of the plaintiff and as such the question of law formulated relating to Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and Section 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act fails. 14. 14. The other substantial question of law relating to adverse possession formulated by the court in view of registered deed No. 548 and 549 dated 06.04.1970 and having taken possession from them cannot be gone into in view of the concurrent findings of fact by both the courts below because the registered deed No. 548 and 549 dated 06.04.1970 were not produced and exhibited by the defendants in spite of time given to them by the court and the courts below have come to a categorical finding that the defendants have failed to prove the question of adverse possession and hence the question of adverse possession in the opinion of the Court is not a substantial question of law and cannot be agitated in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. In the result the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Send down the lower Court records.