JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 18.04.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No.17 of 2011 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. At the time of admitting this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed: “1. Whether recitals in the sale deed regarding delivery of possession can lead to the conclusion that there was actual delivery of possession, while contrary is reflected in the record of right? 2. Whether documentary evidence adduced by the parties were not rightly considered and appreciated by the appellate Court?” 3. The appellants are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed by the original respondent No.1 for declaration and for consequential relief of injunction. The suit land has been described in the Schedule ‘C’ of the suit land for purpose of declaration. The appellants and other defendants by filing a written statement have resisted the claim of the plaintiff contending that the plaintiff after purchase of the suit land constructed a katcha hut with CI sheet roofing and champakampa wall with katcha viti, in the middle of 1981. The plaintiff and her husband made a plan to construct a pucca hut and they brought the construction materials. But the defendant No.1 having come to know that the plaintiff and her husband have been trying to construct the pucca hut covering the present katcha hut threatened the plaintiff not to construct the pucca hut, in the first week of March, 2008. The plaintiff and her husband informed the defendant No.1 that the suit land has been purchased from his father and other legal heirs of Amar Ch. Shil by the sale deed executed on 12.02.1980 and 30.04.1981. The defendants have further stated that they were in the possession of the suit land partly. The plaintiffs were never given the mutation despite their attempts to get such mutation. The other defendants, except the defendant No.1, has stated that they had no intention to obstruct the possession by the plaintiff on the suit land. Those defendants have categorically stated that the defendants No.1 is a very greedy and desperate person. 4. The plaintiffs were never given the mutation despite their attempts to get such mutation. The other defendants, except the defendant No.1, has stated that they had no intention to obstruct the possession by the plaintiff on the suit land. Those defendants have categorically stated that the defendants No.1 is a very greedy and desperate person. 4. On the face of such pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for adjudication of the suit: “(I) Whether the suit is maintainable in law and in fact? (II) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land? (III) Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to a decree of right, title, interest over the suit land? (IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering for causing obstruction in any way to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land? (V) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction by restraining the defendants from making any pucca construction over the suit land? (VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or reliefs in this case?” 5. The plaintiff admitted in the evidence two registered sale deeds bearing No.1-1194 dated 12.02.1980 for a piece of land measuring 3 karas and another sale deed bearing No.1-3420 dated 30.04.1981 measuring 1 ganda 1 kranta and 10 dhurs. Those lands are respectively described in the Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the plaint and their aggregate has been described in the Schedule-C of the plaint. There is no dispute that the record of rights (ROR) stands in the name of Amar Ch. Shil, the predecessor of the defendants. Said Amar Ch. Shil has been reflected in the khatian as the permissive possessor. Those sale deeds are admitted in the evidence following the procedure of Section 67 of the Evidence Act. From the defendant No.1 survival certificates of Amar Ch. Shil and Matilal Shil are admitted in the evidence as Exbt.A and Exbt.B. Some revenue receipts in the name of Amar Ch. Shil and finally published khatian, which are marked as Exbt.D and Exbt.F, are also introduced in the evidence. The said defendant No.1 had also introduced in the evidence a certified copy of revenue map and tax book of AMC in the name of Jyotsna Shil, which were marked as Exbt.G and Exbt.H respectively. 6. The trial court, the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. The said defendant No.1 had also introduced in the evidence a certified copy of revenue map and tax book of AMC in the name of Jyotsna Shil, which were marked as Exbt.G and Exbt.H respectively. 6. The trial court, the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura having referred to the provisions of Section 58 of the Registration Act has observed that the registering authority was obligated to consider objection raised by the appellant as to the validity of the document brought to them for registration and particularly when a written or verbal protest is raised against the registration of the document on the ground that the person executing the same has no right to execute the documents. Thereafter, it has been further observed that in the year 1980-81, the plaintiff approached the Mutation Officer for recording her name by way of mutation but the authority having such power had refused such prayer. Having observed thus and based on the Exbt.G and Exbt.H, the suit was dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 02.05.2011 delivered in Title Suit No.39 of 2008, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC being Title Appeal No.17 of 2011 which was in the course of time transferred to the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. The said appeal was allowed by the judgment dated 18.04.2013 which is now under challenge before this court. The appellate court had appreciated the facts afresh and observed as under: “.............. when it appears that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is confirmed by the oral and documentary evidence as discussed above and at the same time when the plaintiff has successfully established his title over the suit land, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land specifically described under schedule A & B of the plaint and combinedly described under schedule C of the plaint appertaining to Khatian No.0 of mouja Agartala schedule No.10 under C. S. Plot no.8317 (part) corresponding to present CS plot no.219. In view of the discussion made above I find it is not necessary to discuss on the documents like certified copy of revenue map, AMC Book standing in the name of defendant no.2, revenue receipt etc. In view of the discussion made above I find it is not necessary to discuss on the documents like certified copy of revenue map, AMC Book standing in the name of defendant no.2, revenue receipt etc. submitted by the defendants in this case. At the same time considering the fact that the defendants could not made out (sic) any specific case for them but vehemently contested this suit even after more than 30 years of the purchase of the suit land by the plaintiff and specifically when it is admitted by the defendant no.1 during cross examination as D.W.1 that he did not file any suit challenging the sale deeds on which the plaintiff relied in this suit, I find that the plaintiff has also got cause of action for this suit and she is entitled to the decree as prayed for.” 8. Accordingly, the suit was decreed on granting the decree of declaration of right, title and interest and of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. Challenging that finding the defendants have filed the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. 9. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has submitted that the first appellate court by not properly considering the certified copy of the revenue map, AMC book, standing in the name of the defendant No.2 and revenue receipts etc. has caused serious miscarriage of justice. 10. Before we embark on assessing the substantial question of law in the contextual background, this court must take note of the para8 of the joint written statement, filed by the defendants. In the said paragraph, the defendants have stated as under: “That, the plaintiff after purchase of the suit land constructed a katcha hut therein having C.I. sheet roofing champakampa wall and katcha bhiti in middle part of 1981. The plaintiff and her husband recently made a plan to construct a pucca hut and accordingly they have brought sand, cement etc. for construction of the pucca hut but the defendant no.1 having come to know that the plaintiff and her husband have been trying to construct the pucca hut covering the present katcha hut threatened the plaintiff not to construct the pucca hut in the first of March, 2008. The plaintiff and her husband informed the defendant no.1 that the suit land has been purchased from his father and other legal heirs of Amar Ch. The plaintiff and her husband informed the defendant no.1 that the suit land has been purchased from his father and other legal heirs of Amar Ch. Shil by documents executed on 12.2.1980 and 30.04.1981 A.D. In spite of that the defendant no.1 is trying to obstruct the construction of the hut and because of that cloud has arisen in the matter of title and possession of the suit land and the plaintiff has been compelled to institute this civil suit claiming declaration of and confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction against the defendants so that the right title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land has been permanently settled and that the defendants never create cloud by objection or interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and her husband in the suit properly. That it may be mentioned here that the plaintiff and her husband have been residing now in a portion of the land situated just adjacent to the western boundary of the suit and. The defendant no.1 and 2 have been residing to the eastern side of the suit land. In between, the suit land of the plaintiff and the homestead of the defendant No.1 and 2, there two pucca pillars in the north-eastern and south-eastern corner of the suit land. These two pillars are still in existence and prove the boundary of the land purchased by the plaintiff, from legal heirs of Amar Ch Shil. As the predecessor Matilal Shil and defendant no.2, father and mother of the defendant no.1 sold the suit property along with legal heirs of Amar Ch. Shil, they cannot claim any right, title and possession in the suit land.” 11. This court has been taken by surprise when after making such categorical admission about the fact as pleaded by the plaintiffs, why so many issues were framed and why the suit could not be disposed of on the basis of the admission made by the defendants. 12. On the face of such admission, this court does not find any infirmity in the finding returned by the first appellate court and as such is of the considered opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.