JUDGMENT Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J. 1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Darrang at Mangaldai, in Title Appeal No. 17/1999, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.05.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Mangaldai, in Title Suit No. 14/1997. The respondent as plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of possessory right and for recovery of khas possession by ejecting the defendant/appellant from the land described in Schedule-1 and 2 to the plaint, contending inter alia that the land was originally under the possession of their predecessor-in-interest and the proforma defendant No. 2 Sudhir Kr. Dutta, out of which land measuring 5 bighas 2 kathas 10 lechas covered by dag No. 283 in village Moamari has been under possession of the plaintiff since the year 1973 and land measuring 4 bighas 4 kathas covered by dag No. 282 of the said village was under possession of the proforma defendant No. 2. It has also been contended that by virtue of a family settlement, the proforma defendant No. 2 was allotted the land described in Schedule-3 of the plaint and the plaintiff got 10 bighas 1 katha 10 lechas in Schedule-1 and 2 to the plaint, who has been possessing the same. The further case of the plaintiff is that the proforma defendant No. 2 proposed to sell the possession of 4 bighas 3 kathas of land in favour of the defendant No. 1 at Rs. 4,700/- in dag No. 137 of Schedule-3 land, for which a katcha sale deed was also executed. The further pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the land which fell in his share being land described in Schedule-1 and 2 was given to the defendant No. 1 for cultivation on Adhi system, who, however, has subsequently refused to share the crops claiming purchase of the land from the proforma defendant No. 2 by a katcha deed. 2. The defendant No. 1/appellant has filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and contending inter alia that he possesses the suit land after purchasing the possession by a katcha deed dated 15.05.1979. According to the said defendant the plaintiff has no possession over the suit land described in Schedule-1 and 2. 2. The defendant No. 1/appellant has filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and contending inter alia that he possesses the suit land after purchasing the possession by a katcha deed dated 15.05.1979. According to the said defendant the plaintiff has no possession over the suit land described in Schedule-1 and 2. The proforma defendant No. 2 by filing the written statement has supported the case of the plaintiff. The proforma defendant No. 3 by filing the written statement has contended that he has no claim over the suit land except being receiver. 3. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues for determination:-- (i) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (iii) Whether the plaintiff has got possessory right over the suit land? (iv) Whether the defendant purchased possessory right over the suit land from proforma defendant No. 2? (v) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? Addl. Issue: (i) Whether the suit land has been properly described? 4. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence on record as adduced by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 19.05.1999. Being aggrieved the defendant No. 1 preferred Title Appeal No. 17/1999, which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001. Hence the present appeal. 5. The appeal has been admitted for hearing vide order dated 03.12.2001 on the following substantial question of law:-- Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed an error in discarding Ext.- 'Gha', an unregistered sale deed? 6. I have heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents, though the names of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are reflected in the cause list. 7. It has been contended by Mr. Das, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant that though Ext.-'Gha' deed is an unregistered one, the same can be considered for collateral purpose i.e. to demonstrate the possession of the defendant over the suit land, when the plaintiff has claimed declaration of possession based on his previous possession. The learned Sr. 7. It has been contended by Mr. Das, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant that though Ext.-'Gha' deed is an unregistered one, the same can be considered for collateral purpose i.e. to demonstrate the possession of the defendant over the suit land, when the plaintiff has claimed declaration of possession based on his previous possession. The learned Sr. counsel submits that the Courts below have discarded the Ext.-'Gha' deed only on the ground that the same is not a registered instrument and did not take into consideration the said document to ascertain the possession of the defendant over the suit land. 8. It appears from the judgments passed by the Courts below that the Ext.-'Gha' deed, though is not a registered instrument, has been considered by both the Courts below. The First Appellant Court has found that the Ext.-'Gha' instrument cannot be believed as the description of the property was subsequently added that too by different ink and hand, which has also not been supported by the proforma defendant No. 2. It has also been found that to prove the contents of the said document even the writer of the document has not been examined. The First Appellate Court has also discussed the evidence on record. It has also been found that none of the boundary witness was examined by the appellant to substantiate his claim of possession over the suit land i.e. the land described in Schedule-1 and 2 to the plaint. Ext.-'Gha' deed was also found to be not relating to the suit land being Schedule-1 and 2. The same having been taken into consideration by both the Courts below for collateral purpose i.e. relating to the possession, the substantial question of law as formulated does not exist in the present appeal. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of any merit and hence the same is dismissed. No cost. The Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith. Appeal dismissed