JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel, Mr. P Roy Barman for the appellants and learned senior counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel, Mr. H. Laskar for the respondents. 2. It is most fairly submitted by Mr. Roy Barman that after acceptance of the additional evidence, which has been placed before the Court, for the appellants, perhaps there is little scope to convince this Court in respect of the ownership of the property in dispute. 3. The respondent, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No. 05/2006 seeking declaration that the plaintiff No. 6, the Deity (Radha Madhab Jew) is the owner of the property described in the schedule of the plaintiff and, further, prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 5(e) from transferring the property or any portion thereof. 4. The trial court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs could not prove that the suit land was gifted by a proper deed of gift. A certified copy of the gift deed was produced saying that the original was lost/destroyed. Appeal was preferred and the appeal was allowed by the appellate court. By this time, the original gift deed was traced out and the plaintiff-respondents prayed for adducing additional evidence by producing the gift deed and that was allowed. 5. The original gift deed has been proved. So now I find nothing to question the ownership of the respondent No.6 over the suit property. 6. It will be the duty of this Court to convey thanks to learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman for his candid submission about the merit of the appeal. 7. In view of the discussion made above, the second appeal stands disposed of. Send back the LC records along with a copy of this judgment.