JUDGMENT : This is an appeal under section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 17.12.2012 delivered in T.A. No. 12 of 2010 by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 2 west Tripura Agartala. By the said judgment, the judgment and decree respectively dated 10.02.2010 and 16.020.2010 delivered in TS. 15 of 2011 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura has been affirmed. To question the said concurrent finding the appellant has proposed the substantial questions of law, but for purpose of hearing the following substantial questions of law has been formulated by the order dated 26.04.2013. “Whether the judgment passed by the 1st Appellate Court suffers from perversity because of non consideration of the exhibited documents? Any other substantial question of law may be formulated at the time of hearing.” 2. It is to be noted that Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not press for formulating any other substantial question of law based on the leave granted by this Court. On the contrary, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that the decision rendered by the courts below in respect of admission of Exhibit 1 [photo copy of Khatian No.777of Mouja Konaban] is unsustainable inasmuch as the photo copy is a copy mechanically produced from a public document. 3. For purpose of examination the substantial question of law as above, the relevant fact may be placed at the outset in a nutshell. The plaintiff appellant instituted the suit for declaration and confirmation of possession and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction. The plaintiff averred that he purchased 20 acre of land by a registered sale deed No. 14421 dated 08.06.1979. The said purchased land is the suit land as described in the plaint and pertains to Khatian No. 777 [corresponding to Old Khatian No. 483], plot No. 1022/2600. 4. After purchase, the plaintiff constructed a dwelling hut on the suit land. However, after 9/10 year he shifted his home stead to another place nearby the suit land but the plaintiff has contained in possessing the suit land by cultivating seasonal vegetable and growing fruit bearing trees as the absolute owner. Even the plaintiff got the records of right mutated in respect of the suit land in his name and thus, Khatin No. 777 has been opened. 5. Even the plaintiff got the records of right mutated in respect of the suit land in his name and thus, Khatin No. 777 has been opened. 5. The defendant was trying to create disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, however the plaintiff maintained his possession and refused to cow down to the tactic of the defendant. On 11.03.2001, the defendant and some other unknown persons made an attempt to enter forcibly in the suit land but for the resistance offered by the plaintiff, their attempt failed. According to the plaintiff, the defendant having transferred the right title and interest of the land, now cannot illlegally disturb the possession of the plaintiff. In this back ground, the said suit was instituted fundamentally for the perpetual injunction, based on the title. 6. The sole defendant by filing the written statement has denied the said claim of the plaintiff. According to her, her husband, Balaram Majumder, since deceased was the owner of the suit land and after death of Balaram Majumder, his legal heirs including the defendant became the joint owner of the suit land. She has categorically asserted that she never executed the sale deed 14421 dated 18.06.1979 as claimed by the plaintiff. Such claim is mischievous and as such has strongly been disputed by the defendant. The said deed was created fraudulently by the plaintiff. Thus, the mutation of the records is also collusive one and as such the Khatin No. 777 is liable to be cancelled. The sole defendant also stated that all the legal heirs of Balaram Majumder have not been made party. 7. The trial court framed the following issues for adjudication of the suit. 1. Is the suit maintainable in law? 2. Has the plaintiff right, title and possession over the suit land? 3. Is the plaintiff entitled to the decree as prayed for? 4. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled? 8. It is apparent that issue No. 2 is the vital issue based on which the other issues can only be decided. While deciding the issue No. 2 the trial court has observed and returned the finding as under:- “In this issue, I have to decide whether the plaintiff has any right title and possession over the suit land. 8. It is apparent that issue No. 2 is the vital issue based on which the other issues can only be decided. While deciding the issue No. 2 the trial court has observed and returned the finding as under:- “In this issue, I have to decide whether the plaintiff has any right title and possession over the suit land. In this respect, plaintiff in his plaint as well as deposition stated that he has purchased the suit land from the defendant who has sold the land on behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor sons and daughters vide registered sale deed bearing No. 14422 on 08.06.1979. But the plaintiff has not produced any registered sale deed or the certified copy thereof. He has merely produced a photo copy of certified copy of the register sale deed which is neither accepted nor proved in the suit. Plaintiff in his plaint and affidavit in examination in chief stated that he is in the possession of the suit land from the date of his purchase but he has not produced any document in this regard. However, from the case record, I find that photocopy of Khatian No. 777 was exhibited as Ext.1 but in the examination in chief or cross examination of PWs nowhere it is stated by the plaintiff or any of the witnesses that they have submitted Khatian no. 777 and which is marked as Ext.1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the documents is not exhibited and proved as per proper procedure. However, even if I considered that this is exhibited, but this is not sufficient to prove the plaintiff's title and possession over the suit land. Besides this, plaintiff has not appeared at the date of argument. From this fact, it appears that plaintiff is not interested in the case because he has not filed document and he knows that he has failed to prove his case. Considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove the sale of the suit land by the defendant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove his right, title and possession over the suit land. Therefore, issue No. 2 is decided against the plaintiff in negative.” 9. Considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove the sale of the suit land by the defendant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove his right, title and possession over the suit land. Therefore, issue No. 2 is decided against the plaintiff in negative.” 9. Based on the said finding the suit was dismissed even though it was found by the trial court while deciding the issue No. 1 that the suit was maintainable. Being aggrieved by that finding, the plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 10.02.2012 delivered in TS 15 of 2001 under Section 96 of the CPC in the court of the District Judge, being T.A. 12 of 2010. In the course of time, the appeal was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala. By the impugned judgment dated 17.01.2012 the said appeal was dismissed affirming the finding as returned by the trial court in respect of the issue No. 2 by observing as under: “10. Out of 4 issues, issue No. 2 is the important issue and I find that the plaintiff-appellant only produced a photo copy of certified copy of registered sale deed to prove his title and this photo copy is not admissible and it is not proved. Plaintiff-appellant in his plaint and affidavit in examination in chief stated that he is in possession of the suit land from the date of his purchase but he has not produced any document in this regard. Photo copy of Khatian No. 777 which was exhibited as Exhibit1 learned court below did not rely upon the said document on the ground that the original Khatian was not produced. In my opinion, learned court below rightly rejected the Exhibit1. In a suit for declaration of title, specifically in respect of land, it is the burden of the plaintiff-appellant to prove title by way of documentary evidence. In the instant case, I find that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his right, title and possession over the suit land. Hence, I hold that issue No. 2 was rightly decided by the learned court below. Other issues were also decided rightly by the learned court below”. 10. Mr. In the instant case, I find that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his right, title and possession over the suit land. Hence, I hold that issue No. 2 was rightly decided by the learned court below. Other issues were also decided rightly by the learned court below”. 10. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly submitted the title deed has not been produced to establish the title of the plaintiff over the suit land. He has also admitted that there is not reference of admitting Exhibit1, in the Khatian No. 777 [the photo copy] in the examination-in-chief or in the cross-examination of the PWs. 11. Mr. Chakraotoy, having confronted by this court has admitted that in the first appeal there was no attempt to cure such irregularity. He has submitted that from the records it would be evident that the trial court has marked it as Exhibit1. From the other side, Mr. R. G. Chakraborty appearing for the sole respondent submitted that the transfer has been strongly disputed by the sole respondent and she has termed the purported mutation as collusive. 12. Moreover, the sole respondent has averred categorically that she did not execute the sale deed dated 08.06.1979. Thus, the burden of proving the title and the possession were squarely on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge that burden and hence there is not infirmity in the concurrent finding returned by the first appellate court. From scrutiny of the record a further revelation has surfaced. The plaintiff (PW1) in the examination-in-chief has clearly stated that the certified copies of the sale deed bearing No. 14422 dated 08.07.1979 and original Khatian bearing No. 777 have been submitted by him in the case No. T.S. 8 of 2001 pending before the same court and the said case had been filed by the defendant. So, the said documents might be called for and exhibited following the prescribed process. 13. It is thus apparent that the original sale deed was nowhere deposited. In the examination-in-chief PW1 has further deposed that the original sale deed in respect of the suit land was kept in the custody of his brother-in-law while he was constructing his homestead in the year 1981 and then the original sale deed was taken away by the dacoits from the custody of the brother-in-law. In the examination-in-chief PW1 has further deposed that the original sale deed in respect of the suit land was kept in the custody of his brother-in-law while he was constructing his homestead in the year 1981 and then the original sale deed was taken away by the dacoits from the custody of the brother-in-law. No step has been taken to admit the secondary evidence i.e. the certified copy of the sale deed dated 08.07.1979 or the Khatian No 777 as stated. 14. From the deposition of the plaintiff it is apparent that there had been no endavour to get these documents admitted in the evidence. No proof has been filed that those documents were submitted in a case being T.S. 8 of 2001. It is not the duty of the court to call for records from the other court for purpose of admitting the same but it is the exclusive duty of the party who intends to admit such document to complete the procedure for bringing such record. 15. There was no legal evidence before the trial court in respect of the title of the suit land. Even discarding the ancillary objections regarding the non-impleadment of other legal heirs of Balaram Majudmer since deceased, the predecessor of the sole defendant, the absence of evidence in respect of title cannot be repaired by oral evidence in view of section 61 of the Evidence Act. The contents of document may only be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. The primary evidence means the documents itself produced for the inspection of the court. Here the primary evidence is the original sale deed for purpose of transfer of the title of the suit land. Even its certified copy has not been introduced to bring the same in the evidence after fulfilling the conditions as laid down in section 65 of the Evidence Act. 16. In absence of title deed, the claim of the title on the face of serious opposition cannot be presumed on the basis of the record of right. Moreover, in this case the record of right (Khatian) has not been placed in accordance with law. Hence rightly, the courts below discarded the so called Exhibit1. This Court does not find any infirmity in the finding returned by the impugned judgment. Having held so, this appeal stands dismissed. Draw the decree accordingly and thereafter send down the records.