JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. GS Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of Code of the Civil Procedure against the concurrent finding of the fact returned by the judgment dated 09.08.2011 delivered in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2011 by the Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, as he then was. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The appellant filed the suit being T.S. 34 of 2009 for confirmation of possession, perpetual injunction and cancellation of the registered deed by which the defendant No.1 namely Dulan Bhattacharjee purchased an amount of land measuring 0.39 acres pertaining to Khatian No. 1896, C.S. plot No. 3695 (Part) and 3696 corresponding to new plot No. 4218 and 4219 with specific boundary by the sale deed No. 1-1575 dated 28.08.2009. 3. The plaintiff’s case in short is that he has been possessing the suit land as described in the schedule to the plaint. After death of his father namely Bidhu Bhusan Kar who had been possessing the said land for quite a long time. To be precise, according to the plaintiff, their possession was for 55 years. Even in the khatian No. 1896 his father was recorded as the occupier, but after the said deed of sale dated 21.08.2009, the khatian was mutated and in the column No. 16, name of the father of the appellant has been recorded as permissive possessor for the entire land. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the sale transaction is a sham one for two reasons viz. (i) never the defendant-respondent No.1 got the delivery of possession by virtue of the said sale deed and (ii) the sale deed was executed in violation of condition of the TLR & LR (Allotment) Rules, 1980. The said contention has squarely been disputed by the defendant-respondent No.1 by stating that the suit land was alloted to Smt. Sarashi Bala Deb in consideration of her possession, much before 1955. After death of Sarashi Bala Deb, the land devolved to her legal heirs i.e. the defendant No. 2 and 3. The record of right was corrected and their name was recorded as rayati under khatian No. 1896, Mouja-Churaibari. After death of Sarashi Bala Deb, the land devolved to her legal heirs i.e. the defendant No. 2 and 3. The record of right was corrected and their name was recorded as rayati under khatian No. 1896, Mouja-Churaibari. According to the defendant-respondent No.1, the suit land was in active possession of the defendants No. 2 and 3 and later on he purchased the suit land by the sale deed dated 26.08.2009 on payment of the consideration money. The alloted land according to the defendant-respondent No.1 was 0.98 acres and by way of amicable partition the defendant No.2 got the land measuring 0.39 acres which he purchased from the defendant-respondent No.2 by the said deed. According to the defendant-respondent No.1, the plaintiff did never possess the said land. Even his father was not in possession, but in column No. 16 wrongly the name of his father had been recorded. His father died in the year 1980. The defendant-respondent no.1 has further stated that the original sale deed was not with him and he has lost it, and that is the reason why he has submitted the certified copy. According to him he is in possession of the land and as such the suit is frivolous one. 4. On appreciation of the evidence led by the plaintiff and the defendants, the trial court held that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove that he was in possession or that the questioned sale deed is liable to be cancelled for breach of the provisions of the TLR and LR (Allotment) Rules, 1980. By the judgment dated 23.11.2010, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant being Title Suit No. 34 of 2009. The said trial court while dismissing the suit has observed that PW-2 and PW-3 examined by the plaintiff do not support the case of the plaintiff regarding his possession over the suit land. The defendants on the other hand have adduced convincing oral and documentary evidence for rebuttal of the case of the plaintiff. 5. The case of the plaintiff since is based entirely on his possession and he has failed to prove his possession, according to the trial court, the suit must fail and accordingly the suit has been dismissed by the said judgment. 5. The case of the plaintiff since is based entirely on his possession and he has failed to prove his possession, according to the trial court, the suit must fail and accordingly the suit has been dismissed by the said judgment. The said finding as returned by the trial court has been affirmed by the first appellate court by the judgment dated 09.08.2011 delivered in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2011. Now, the said judgment dated 09.08.2011 has been called in question in this appeal. 6. At the time of admission of the appeal the following substantial question of law was framed for purpose of hearing the appeals: “whether the judgment passed by the appellate court suffers from perversity?”. Even though leave was granted to the appellant to raise any other question at the time of hearing, but Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not raised any further substantial question of law for consideration of the case. 7. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued before this court that since the name of his father is in the record, it has to be presumed by the court on the basis of the entry in the record of right that the plaintiff has been continuing in the possession. Moreover, he has averred how the defendant No.1 in particular had raided the suit land in order to oust him from his possession but for timely resistance offered by him, the said bid of the defendant-respondent No.1 has been foiled. That apart, he has raised an unique question that since there is a breach and there is no proof that the District Collector had permitted the defendant No.2 to sell the suit land to the defendant-respondent No.1, the said sale deed is liable to be cancelled but both the courts below has failed to appreciate that part of the fact which is borne in the record. 8. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents has submitted that the plaintiff-appellant lacks locustandi to question the validity of the suit land as in no way he can claim title over the suit land. 8. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents has submitted that the plaintiff-appellant lacks locustandi to question the validity of the suit land as in no way he can claim title over the suit land. In terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, competence to seek cancellation is restricted to the person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable, and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. 9. Though it is a registered instrument, in no way it can cause injury to the plaintiff-appellant as he had no claim over the title of the suit land. As such, the said registered instrument of transferring the land in favour of the defendant No.1 cannot cause injury to the plaintiff and he cannot be the person unless the document is cancelled by declaring it void or voidable and he cannot be affected in any manner. Apart that, there is concurrent finding of the fact in respect of the possession against the plaintiff-appellant. 10. This court has scrutinized the records and finds that both PW-1 and PW-3 during their cross-examination have clearly stated that they had no knowledge what had been written in their examination-in-chief even they do not know and cannot give the plot number and the identifying boundary of the suit land. Therefore, even though a little bit of aberration is found in the finding returned by the trial court, that cannot be held to be perverse as virtually there is no evidence of worth for purpose of proving the possession of the plaintiff. 11. Hence, this court does not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 12. Prepare the decree accordingly and thereafter send down the records.