ORDER(ORAL) This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff in Title Suit No. 14/2007 of the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Nalbari challenging the concurrent findings of the learned courts below. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 31.03.2012 and then an appeal preferred there against being Title Appeal No. 10/2012 before the learned Civil Judge at Nalbari stood dismissed on 06.04.2013. These two judgments have been assailed in the present second appeal stating that the findings of the learned trial Court as to soundness of mind of Maheswar Sarma, the donor of Ext.-1 gift deed, is perverse. 2. Late Premoda Devi as sole plaintiff instituted title Suit No. 14/2007 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1 at Nalbari stating that she was the first wife of Maheswar Sarma who used to live with two other women, namely, Bhabani Devi and Sabitri Devi. According to the plaintiff out of the three wives of Maheswar Sarma she alone was a legally married one and the rest two were not. Defendant No. 1 was one such illegal wife of Maheswar Sarma through whom defendants No. 2 & 3 were born. During his last stage Maheswar was grievously suffering from various illness since May, 2006 till his death. He was almost bed ridden in the last days and lost his memory. He was unable to justify what is good or what is bad and plaintiff and her son and daughter used to look after him. On 06.09.2006 the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 came to the house of plaintiff and sought permission to take away Maheswar in their custody for few days as they were willing to take care of him at his last stage. Plaintiff permitted them to take away Maheswar Sarma at their custody but during this period the defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 conspiratorially got a gift deed executed and registered by him in respect of Schedule-B land. Maheswar Sarma died on 04.12.2006 and after his death defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 performed funeral rites separately. Thereafter it came to the notice of the plaintiff that defendants obstructed the plaintiff from peaceful possession of the respective share of the land left behind by Maheswar Sarma. They rather threatened the plaintiff to vacate the house also. Maheswar Sarma died on 04.12.2006 and after his death defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 performed funeral rites separately. Thereafter it came to the notice of the plaintiff that defendants obstructed the plaintiff from peaceful possession of the respective share of the land left behind by Maheswar Sarma. They rather threatened the plaintiff to vacate the house also. This caused suspicion in the mind of the plaintiff whereupon she made enquiry and came to know that a registered gift deed was shown to have been executed by Maheswar Sarma on 21.09.2006 in favour of the defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 with respect to Schedule-B land. It is under such circumstances, the plaintiff instituted suit for declaration that plaintiff has right, title and interest to the land covered by Schedule-B and for confirmation of the possession of the plaintiff over the said land etc. The defendants No. 1 to 3 appeared and filed the joint written statement denying all the allegations labelled by the plaintiff and prayed that suit be dismissed with cost. It was specifically stated that gift of deed executed by Maheswar Sarma freely and voluntarily with a spirit view so that defendant No. 1 could maintain herself and she also accept the gift in his presence and the witnesses. 3. On such rival contention the learned trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and the same are follows: 1. Whether there is cause of action for this suit? 2. Whether the suit is properly valued? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the defendant No. 1 is not legally married wife of Late Maheswar Sarma? 5. Whether the gift deed executed in favour of defendant No. 1 is liable to be cancelled? 6. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? 8. To what other relief/ reliefs the parties? 4. Plaintiff examined 4 witnesses in his favour and exhibited four documents. Defendants examined 4 witnesses and proved three documents in their favour. 5. Plaintiff proved the certified copy of the registered gift deed No. 1901/2006 as Ext.-1 whereas the original of the said registered gift deed was exhibited by the defendants as Ext.-K. By examining Ext.-Kha the defendants wanted to show that they performed the last rites of Maheswar Sarma. Defendants examined 4 witnesses and proved three documents in their favour. 5. Plaintiff proved the certified copy of the registered gift deed No. 1901/2006 as Ext.-1 whereas the original of the said registered gift deed was exhibited by the defendants as Ext.-K. By examining Ext.-Kha the defendants wanted to show that they performed the last rites of Maheswar Sarma. Plaintiff on the other hand by examining one Sayeed Ali as PW3 wanted to get the claim of plaintiff corroborated that Maheswar Sarma had lost his memory and did not have balance of mind during the relevant period when aforesaid gift deed was shown to have been executed by him. PW1 is Premoda Devi and PW2 is her son Kanakeswar Sarma. PW3 is the only independent witness who came to the witness box to depose that Maheswar Sarma did not have balance of mind in the last days of life when gift deed was executed and registered. Even in the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that in the month of September, 2006 defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 came to the house of plaintiff and with her permission took away Maheswar Sarma in their house for taking care of him. DW3 Achyut Das on the other hand stated in the witness box that Maheswar was staying with defendant No. 1 for last 15 to 20 years. I have perused the cross-examination of this witness to see as to whether this claim of DW3 has been challenged in any way by the plaintiff. No question was put to DW3 about staying of Maheswar Sarma with the defendants. The defendants on the other hand examined attesting witness of the gift deed. Execution of a gift deed is required to be attested by atleast two witnesses under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. So to prove such document atleast one of the attesting witnesses is to be examined in compliance with the provision of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that a document which requires to be attested by law, can be proved only by examining any of the attesting witnesses provided they are alive. In the case in hand attesting witness was alive and he was examined as DW3 by the defendants. This being the position Ext.-1 was proved in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. In the case in hand attesting witness was alive and he was examined as DW3 by the defendants. This being the position Ext.-1 was proved in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Under such circumstances, plaintiff was duty bound to prove her own case that Maheswar Sarma was either mentally imbalanced or that he did not have memory when the Ext.-1 gift deed was executed. This could have been done by bringing any document in support thereof like prescription, hospitalisation report etc. or by examining a doctor who would have treated Maheswar Sarma for his alleged mental status. Nothing of that sort was done. The plaintiff solely relied on evidence of one PW3 Sayeed Ali who also made a vague statement saying that Maheswar Sarma had lost his mental balance and he was bed ridden and so he put signature on the gift deed at the persuasion of defendant No. 1. This being the evidence of PW3, execution of Ext.-1 is rather proved but mere opinion of PW3 (Sayeed Ali) as to mental status of Maheswar Sarma as on the relevant period is not sufficient. The learned trial Court, therefore, by his judgment and decree dated 31.03.2012 dismissed the suit holding that plaintiff could not prove her case as to unsoundness of mind of Maheswar Sarma at the relevant time. Learned first appellate Court having considered the materials available on record arrived at the independent finding and thereby dismissed the appeal upholding findings of the learned trail Court. The second appeal is thus concluded by concurrent findings of fact. 6. Second appellate Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court only when it is established that these findings are perverse and not otherwise. The appellant has not produced any material before this Court to arrive at a finding that the learned trial Court did not consider the materials brought on record by way of adducing evidence or that the materials brought on record have not been duly construed. Only point for determination before the learned courts below was whether plaintiff proved its case that Maheswar Sarma did not have mental balance on 21.09.2006. Not a single witness of competence has been examined to prove it. Even if the statement of PW3 is accepted, according to him Maheshwar Sarma executed Ext.1 on pursuance of defendants. Only point for determination before the learned courts below was whether plaintiff proved its case that Maheswar Sarma did not have mental balance on 21.09.2006. Not a single witness of competence has been examined to prove it. Even if the statement of PW3 is accepted, according to him Maheshwar Sarma executed Ext.1 on pursuance of defendants. If it was the case of the plaintiff that Maheswar Sarma did not have soundness of mind at that stage, some amount of evidence ought to have been brought on record to persuade the Court to accept such contention. Unfortunately, nothing of such evidence is discernible in the records. The learned courts below have considered the evidence whatever was brought on record by the parties and thereupon arrived at the finding that execution of the Ext.1 was duly proved. The learned trial courts have arrived at the finding that Maheswar Sarma was not of unsoundness of mind as on the date of execution of Ext.-1 gift deed. On the background of such facts and circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in the present case and so there was no scope to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 7. Second appeal is not admitted. 8. It is dismissed. 9. No order as to costs.