1. Heard Mr. M.H. Rajborbhuiya, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 14.3.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 31/2003 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 25.4.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, in Title Suit No. 134/1997, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 3. This appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 20.7.2005 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned courts below are justified in holding the sale deed (Ext. `Ka’) is valid, in view of specific denial by the plaintiff and the deed writer (scribe) PW 3, who denied execution of the aforesaid sale deed.” 4. The plaintiff filed the suit in respect of a plot of land measuring 7 lechas praying for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession, mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100/- per diem from the date of filing of the suit, etc. 5. The case projected is that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their late mother Madhubala Bibi were allowed to live as licensee in the house of the plaintiff on humanitarian consideration. The plaintiff inherited the suit land from his late father and was in exclusive possession by constructing houses thereon. On the plea of repairing of the thatched house, the defendants started raising permanent RCC construction and the plaintiff sought to restrain them. At this, the defendants, on 15.3.1997, denied the title of the plaintiff and claimed that the mother of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the suit land from the plaintiff. On an enquiry, made by him, it was revealed from the patta that Madhubala Bibi got Chitha mutation in respect of land measuring 10 lechas on 14.9.1976 as purchased from the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 got their names mutated in the Chitha on 6.2.1986. However, from an old copy of the Jamabandi of 1968-69, he came to know that the Chitta mutation in the name of Madhubala Bibi was granted for 5 lechas only on 14.9.1976 and thus, the same was a case of forgery. The plaintiff also denied selling the suit land. 6. However, from an old copy of the Jamabandi of 1968-69, he came to know that the Chitta mutation in the name of Madhubala Bibi was granted for 5 lechas only on 14.9.1976 and thus, the same was a case of forgery. The plaintiff also denied selling the suit land. 6. The defendants filed written statement stating that the plaintiff being the owner in respect of 19 lechas of land in Dag No. 161 of patta No. 163 of 1930-31 Settlement, transferred 10 lechas of land in the said Dag and Patta to Madhubala Bibi on 1.4.1971 vide registered sale deed No. 4768 and delivered possession and on getting possession, she constructed katcha house. The suit land was later on converted to patta No. 250 with Dag Nos. 119 and 120 and the land purchased by Madhubala falls within Dag No. 120. Madhubala executed a registered gift deed on 5.2.1985 in favour of the defendants. The land measuring 7 lechas, claimed by the plaintiff, is a part of 10 lechas of land whereupon after getting due permission on 24.7.1997, boundary wall was constructed. 7. Both the courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It is important to note that in the plaint, a casual statement was made by the plaintiff that he did not sell any plot of land and that he did not execute any sale deed. Even after the defendants had disclosed in the written statement the fact of execution of registered sale deed on 27.6.1971, no challenge was made to the said sale deed by way of amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff had not taken any step in accordance with law to challenge the sale deed in question. The sale deed was proved as Ext. Ka. Though the substantial question of law is formulated to the effect that there was a specific denial with regard to execution of sale deed, Ext. Ka, in fact, there is no pleading with regard to Ext. Ka even after filing of the written statement. Execution of registered sale deed is not required to be proved by producing the evidence of the scribe or witness of the deed. But in the instant case, even the scribe was also examined as DW 3. The scribe, who was examined as DW 3, was wrongly recorded as PW 3 in the substantial question of law framed by this Court. But in the instant case, even the scribe was also examined as DW 3. The scribe, who was examined as DW 3, was wrongly recorded as PW 3 in the substantial question of law framed by this Court. The scribe did not deny execution of the sale deed by the seller. He had stated in his evidence that the seller had put his signature in his presence. No suggestion was given by the plaintiff to defendant No. 2, who was examined as DW 1, that the signature of the vendor in the sale deed, Ext. Ka, was not the signature of the plaintiff. Of course, the learned lower appellate court was not correct in saying that Ext. Ka was a 30 year old document. In the instant case, Section 90 of the Evidence Act will certainly not come into play but such observation of the learned lower appellate court does not make any difference in the instant case in as much as the defendants had proved due execution of Ext. Ka. 9. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Substantial question of law is answered in terms of the above. No cost. 10. Send back the LCR.