JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. P.S. Deka, learned counsel representing the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The second appeal arises out of concurrent judgement and decree dated 11/04/2005 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat in Title Appeal No. 13/2004, dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant/defendant and affirming the judgment dated 03/08/2004 and decree dated 09/08/2004 passed by the trial Court in Title Suit No. 8/1997 decreeing the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff. 3. The second appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law:- “(a) Whether the learned lower appellate Court correctly decided the right, title and interest of the plaintiff as occupancy tenant of the suit land under proforma defendant No. 3 according to the law laid down in Assam Temporarily Settled Areas Tenancy Act, 1971 ? (b) Whether the plaintiff’s suit is maintainable in view of absence of any valid right, title and interest over the suit land as occupancy tenant?” 4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the mother of the respondent/plaintiff Jitani Nayak was an occupancy tenant under Sonamoni Goswami in respect of a plot of land measuring 4 Bighas 1 Katha and 8 Lechas, covered by Dag Nos. 592/693, PP No 63 of Kachupathar village in Khumtai Mouza. There was a tenancy khatian issued in the name of Jitani Nayak in the year 1977 and since then she has been in possession of the land as a occupancy tenant. After the death of Jitani Nayak, the plaintiff/respondent being her legal heir, became a tenant and continued to pay the rent of 5 Monds of rice to the landlord. The respondent had constructed a residential house over a plot of land covering 1 Katha 15 lechas out of the total area of land and the rest of the land was being used for cultivation. 5. The respondent had constructed a residential house over a plot of land covering 1 Katha 15 lechas out of the total area of land and the rest of the land was being used for cultivation. 5. The pleaded case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the appellant/defendant had instituted a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. with the malafide intention of grabbing a part of the suit land and thereafter, taking advantage of an order of attachment passed by the Executive Magistrate, the defendants had entered into illegal possession in respect of the suit land and thereafter made a false claim that they had purchased the land from landlord Sonamoni Goswami by means of a registered deed of sale. 6. On receipt of summons in connection with the aforementioned Title Suit No. 8/1997 instituted by the plaintiff, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement whereby they have claimed that the suit land was purchased by their sister Depali Sahu by means of registered deed of purchase. The defendants have, however, admitted that the deceased mother of the plaintiff, viz. Dhana Nayak was the original Khatiandar in respect of the suit land and that Depali Sahu had purchased the aforesaid land measuring 4 Bighas 1 Katha 8 Lechas from its erstwhile owner Sonamoni Goswami on 19/05/1998. The defendants had also claimed that the plaintiff/respondent agreed to vacate the suit land after receiving an amount of Rs.7000/- in cash from Depali Sahu. By taking such plea, the defendants have resisted the decree as sought for by the plaintiff. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court had framed as many as 10 issues. However, referring to all the issues are not deemed necessary. It would be sufficient to record the important issues that would be relevant for a decision of the second appeal, which are as follows:- “(a) Whether Depali Sahu, purchased the suit land as described in schedule ‘Ka’ of the plaint from Sonamoni Goswami? (b) Whether Dhana Nayak, vacated the possession of the land as described in schedule ‘Kha’ of the plaint after receiving Rs.7,000/- from Depali Sanu? © Whether the appellant dispossessed the respondent Dhana Nayak, from the land as described in schedule ‘Ga’ of the plaint? (d) Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971?” 8. © Whether the appellant dispossessed the respondent Dhana Nayak, from the land as described in schedule ‘Ga’ of the plaint? (d) Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971?” 8. Both sides led evidence during the trial. On an appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court had also affirmed the said decree passed by the trial Court by confirming the findings of fact recorded by the court below. The learned lower appellate Court had categorically recorded a finding of fact based on the Khatian (Ext-1) that the mother of the plaintiff, viz. Jitani Nayak was the recorded tenant in respect of schedule ‘Ka’ land who was occupying the land all along as a tenant under Sonamoni Goswami. It was also held that the defendant could not prove and establish the fact that the plaintiff had accepted an amount of Rs.7,000/- from the sister of the defendants Depali Sahu with an undertaking to vacate the suit land. 9. The suit of the plaintiff is apparently one for declaration of tenancy right in respect of schedule ‘Ka’ land and for recovery of possession in respect of schedule “Kha’ land by evicting the defendants. The landlord Sonamoni Goswami was examined by the plaintiff as witness, who had also come and deposed in favour of the plaintiff by completely denying the claim of the defendants. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff side has succeeded in prima-facie establishing their case by cogent evidence on record. Such being the position and considering the fact that the defendants were claiming right over the land on the basis of a registered deed of sale, it was incumbent upon the defendants to produce such title document in support of their claim. However, as has been held by both the Courts below, the defendants had failed to substantiate their claim by producing any document of title. Although a certified copy of a sale deed was sought to be introduced by the defendants, the same was not considered by the Court below on the ground that there was no explanation as to why the original deed was not made available. 10. Although a certified copy of a sale deed was sought to be introduced by the defendants, the same was not considered by the Court below on the ground that there was no explanation as to why the original deed was not made available. 10. From the findings recorded by the Court below, it appears that the learned trial Court had rejected the certified copy of the deed purchased by the defendants on the ground of same not being in conformity with the requirement of section 65 of the Evidence Act pertaining to introduction of secondary evidence, holding that the certified copy of the deed was not admissible in the eye of law. 11. From a meticulous scrutiny of the findings and observations recorded by the Lower Appellate Court, I find that both the Courts below have concurrently upheld the plea of the plaintiff of having acquired occupancy right over the suit land and such findings of fact appears to be based on cogent evidence available on the record. On the other hand, the defendants had completely failed to establish their version of the story. It appears that they had entered into possession in respect of schedule ‘Kha’ land taking advantage of an order of attachment passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section1455 Cr.P.C., which proceeding was also subsequently dismissed due to default on the part of the defendants. It would be significant to mention herein that the defendants did not make any counter-claim in the suit. 12. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no justifiable ground to disturb the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Court below. As such, the substantial question of law urged by the appellant does not arise for a decision in their favour in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Such being the position, this second appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are to bear their own costs.