JUDGMENT & ORDER : The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of Khas passion against the respondents. The appellant purchased the suit land by way of registered sale deed dated 16.3.1998 and also took the delivery of possession mentioned in the schedule of the plaint from one Amruj Ali who was the owner of the said land. Subsequently, the appellants realised that certain mistakes have been made out in the description of the land that he purchased and as in the meantime the vendor Armuj Ali expired so the sale deed was rectified by the heirs of Amruj Ali. But immediately after purchase of the said land the defendants forcefully occupied the suit land on 3.4.1998 and constructed a small house and a pond by engaging large number of labourers, thereby claiming the possession of the land. Though the appellant filed a proceeding U/S 145 Cr.P.C. and the land was attached but on revision attachment was set aside. As the title of the appellant was clouded by the conduct of the respondents so he lodged the Title Suit No. 108/1998 against the respondents praying title over the suit land as well as the khas possession. 2. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 filed a written statement resisting the claim of the appellant on the ground that the said vendor Amruj Ali during his life agreed to sell 10 Kathas of land in 2nd R. S. Patta No. 10, Dag No.6 for a consideration of Rs.19,000/- and on receipt of Rs.5,000/- as on 26.2.1998 Amruj Ali executed a binama in favour of the principal defendant. Unfortunately said Amruj Ali died and inspite of repeated request the said deed was not executed in favour of the defendants. However, it is contended that said 10 Kathas of land was in possession of the defendants for a long time, even before the execution of the said binama. The suit land comprising 9 Kathas covered by Dag No. 30 and 2nd R.S. Patta No. 6 is contiguous towards the north of the land possessed by the respondents. It has been submitted that the plaintiff if has acquired possession by virtue of said sale deed then it will be within the boundaries so prescribed in the aforesaid sale deed. The suit land comprising 9 Kathas covered by Dag No. 30 and 2nd R.S. Patta No. 6 is contiguous towards the north of the land possessed by the respondents. It has been submitted that the plaintiff if has acquired possession by virtue of said sale deed then it will be within the boundaries so prescribed in the aforesaid sale deed. The defect if any in respect of boundaries should have been rectified during the life time of vendor Amruj Ali but it was not done. So the subsequent rectification deed made by legal heirs is not valid. Thus the principal defendant nos. 1 to 5 prays for dismissal of the suit. 3. The defendant no. 7 respondent herein is the son of said vendor Amruj Ali filed a separate written statement denying any sale of the land by way registered sale deed to the appellant by his father and also denied about execution of rectification deed. Instead he has supported the case of other defendants that his father entered into an agreement for sale in favouar of principle defendant nos. 1 to 5, as has been claimed by them. Upon the pleadings the following issues were framed by the trial Court: “(1) Is there any cause of action for the plaintiff suit? (2) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (3) Is the suit property valued and requisite court fee paid thereon? (4) Has the plaintiff right, title, interest over the suit land? (5) Had the defendants forcefully and illegally dispossessed the plaintiff out of the possession of the suit land? (6) Is the plaintiff entitled to get relief as prayed for? (7) What other relief/reliefs parties are entitled to? 4. The learned trial Court after examining the evidence of both parties as well as documents produced decreed the suit with cost and on appeal preferred by the respondents the appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, basically deciding the issue nos. 4 and 5. The learned appellate Court after appreciation of evidence came to a finding that as the plaintiff required to prove that he was in possession of the suit land and was dispossessed, so burden lies upon him to prove his possession but he fails to prove the same. 4 and 5. The learned appellate Court after appreciation of evidence came to a finding that as the plaintiff required to prove that he was in possession of the suit land and was dispossessed, so burden lies upon him to prove his possession but he fails to prove the same. The evidence of the appellant was discussed as to the time of delivery of possession of the suit land after it was purchased by him and it has been categorically held that as the plaintiff could not assert the exact time of delivery of possession and there is some deviation as regards the timing of delivery of possession and the fact that the revisional Court stayed the attachment order passed U/S 146 Cr.P.C. preferred by the appellant, so there was no possession on the part of the appellant on the suit land. Similarly, deed of rectification Ext.3 was also considered to be not a valid document in view of denial of execution by the respondent no.7. Further the learned Appellate Court held that the appellant failed to prove the possession to the suit land whereas respondents have proved their documents regarding agreement for sale and the possession over the disputed land. On the basis of above observation learned appellate court has decided the case in favour of the defendants and appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment and order of the trial Court. Hence the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether the learned lower Court committed error on a substantial question of law in recording the findings that Ext.3 and 4 (certified copy of rectification deed and the original sale deed) are not valid documents by relying upon the pleadings made by the respondent no. 7 who did not examine himself as a witness in support of the pleadings ? 2. Whether the findings of lower appellate court that there was no possession on the part of the plaintiff is perverse to the evidence on record? 3. Whether the rectification deed Ext. 4 would be a valid document in absence of signature of the legal heirs of plaintiff’s vendor i.e. Amruj Ali ? 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. According to Mr. 3. Whether the rectification deed Ext. 4 would be a valid document in absence of signature of the legal heirs of plaintiff’s vendor i.e. Amruj Ali ? 6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. According to Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondents, plaintiff has failed to prove that the disputed land as has been mentioned at Ext.2 and 4 is identical with that of Ext.B. Further it has been contended that there is no substantial question of law in this case but all are disputed facts. Justifying the order of the appellate Court it has been argued that as one of the respondent no.7/son of deceased’s vendor Amruj Ali has not supported case of the plaintiff so learned appellate Court has rightly arrived at a finding as regards possession of the respondents in view of the Ext.B Binama made by the deceased Amruj Ali. It is the specific case of the respondents that they were in possession of the disputed land by virtue of the Ext.B Binama. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant has advance his arguments pointing towards certain aspects that the matter that the respondents never challenged such Sale Deed as well as Rectification Deed which were executed much after the execution of Binama and as such they now cannot challenge such documents. It has been vehemently argued that the learned appellate Court has erred in law by relying upon such Ext. B. Bianama which has no force of law and the defendants/respondents never made any claim against the said vendor or his legal heirs to enforce his right, to get the sale executed in their favour. Further the Ext.C which was the application for NOC for sale of the land mentioned in Ext.B make it clear that the said land was a cultivatable land and how the defendants/respondents can assert that the said land was possessed by them by constructing house etc., which itself indicates falsity of the plea of the defendants. That apart defendants/respondents made no explanation as to why said disputed land as mentioned in Ext. B was not sold to the respondents. That apart defendants/respondents made no explanation as to why said disputed land as mentioned in Ext. B was not sold to the respondents. Moreover, it contends that the learned trial Court’s finding is erroneous as it failed to appreciate the legal aspects of those registered documents so exhibited by the appellants and has relied upon the written statement so filed by the respondent no.7 who never came forward to substantiate his plea in the written statement nor any evidence was led to disprove the rectification as well as sale deed and these are the substantial question of law required to be decided. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties canvassed before this Court. From the findings of the appellate Court reveals that the learned appellate Court has relied on the Ext.B Binama produced by the respondents side and thereby it has been held that the defendants/respondents were in possession of the suit land. That apart, the learned appellate Court has also relied on the averments so made by the respondent no.7 in his written statement. 9. It is to be noted that the learned appellate Court has not appreciated the matter of sale deed as well as rectification deed which were registered one and was duly proved by the appellant side. Obviously, strong and convincing evidence is required so as to discard such lawful execution of documents, when the due execution of said document has been proved and even not denied by respondents. As we found that the judgment of appellate Court is silent on the point. On the other hand much emphasis has been given on the Ext.B Binama to assert the possession of the defendants/respondents. But mere reading of said Ext.B dated 26.2.1998 will reveal it was executed by the deceased vendor with a declaration that sale of the land will be executed within two months subject to payment of final amount by the defendants/respondents. Obviously, the effect of said Ext.B was for only for two months duration and the defendants/ respondents never adhered to the deceased vendor while he was alive for due execution of sale within the said period neither they ever challenged the sale deed as well as the rectification deed Ext. 3 and Ext.4 nor prayed for cancellation of the said registered deeds. 3 and Ext.4 nor prayed for cancellation of the said registered deeds. No suit was filed by the defendants/respondents for specific performance of said agreement of sale Ext.B and in such backdrop the defendants/respondents are not in a position to resist the case of the appellant who has already acquired right, title and interest over the suit property by virtue of legal documents. 10. It also transpires from the record that (PW-2) the son of the said deceased vendor has duly supported the case of the appellant as regards the execution of sale deed and also about delivery of possession to the appellant immediately after execution of the sale deed. Merely because the appellant failed to disclose the exact time of delivery of possession of the suit land after his purchase, same cannot be a ground discard his possession. Dispossession immediately after taking possession cannot effect the legal right of the appellant which has accrued under a valid legal document. So far the evidence of the appellant side there appears sufficient corroboration as regards the possession of the appellant over the suit land even though so for a short period. 11. So far as the Ext.B Binama it is to be seen that it is nowhere disclosed that the defendants/respondents were given possession over the disputed land then how the defendants/respondents can claim possession on the basis of such documents? Similarly, whatever the evidence adduced by the defendants/respondents in support of the possession of the defendants/respondents cannot be accepted where the very basis of such right is not at all proved by them. The defendants/respondents cannot have any lawful claim upon such Binama which is not proved beyond doubt as has been held by the learned trial Court. The learned appellate Court has not appreciated such vital aspects and has acted upon the superficial claim upon such documents. Then again the Ext.C the petition for permission to sell made by the deceased vendor and the appellant on the basis of the Ext.B also reveals that the said land was a cultivatable land i.e. a paddy field then how the defendants/respondents can construct his dwelling house when possession was not delivered, nor any permission was there for construction of house where admittedly the land was a paddy filed. All indicates the falsity of the plea of the defendants/respondents. 12. All indicates the falsity of the plea of the defendants/respondents. 12. On the next the learned appellate Court has accepted the version of the respondent no.7 as given in his written statement, but it is to be noted that the said respondent after filing of written statement remained absent and has not substantiated his plea, even after getting opportunity. Mere filing of written statement is of no consequence, unless substantiated. The said respondent no.7 never challenged the said sale deed and rectification deed at any point of time which was executed far back on 16.2.1998 and 12.11.1998 and has raised such plea only when the case was filed by the appellant in 2004, which is again not substantiated, can no way be accepted towards due execution of the registered deeds. The plea of the respondent no.7 that the said rectification deed cannot be accepted as it was executed in his absence is also cannot be accepted at this belated stage. It may also be noted here that the aforesaid rectification deed was only to mention the boundary of the suit land whereas the suit land remains the same. In such backdrop even though the respondent no.7 did not sign the rectification deed would hardly effect the same or cause prejudice to the respondent no.7, whereas his father sold the land by proper sale deed. 13. In view of the findings all above this Court is of the opinion that findings of the learned trial Courts is based on good reasoning and proper appreciation of evidence both on factual and legal aspects whereas, the appellate Court has failed to appreciate the proper provision of law as regards validity of legal documents over invalid documents so produced by the defendants/respondents. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. All the substantial questions answered in affirmative and in favour of the appellant. Resultantly, the judgment and order dated 8.6.2004 so passed by the appellate court in T.A. No. 22/02 is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 7.3.2002 and 21.3.2002 so passed by the learned trial Court in T.S.No.108/98 is hereby upheld. Return the LCR forthwith with a direction to the trial Court for due execution of the judgment and decree.