JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. 1. This second appeal by the defendant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 16/2007 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in Title Suit No. 83/1993. 2. Bhakta Goala (since deceased), father of the respondents, as plaintiff, filed the Title Suit No. 83/1993 alleging that one Sri. Masad Goala, proforma defendant No. 20(ka) was the owner of the suit land. Said Masad Goala by registered Sale Deed No. 3901 dated 22.03.1975 sold the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and delivered position. While the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land, the defendants tried to disposses the plaintiff and thereby clouded the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession and/or recovery of possession. During pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives were substituted. 3. The pleaded case of the main defendants was that land measuring 60B 2K 3L along with the suit land, originally belonged to Ananda Gaur, Kartik Gaur and Masad Goala. Kartik Gour and Ananda Gour, who transferred their share of the land being 12 bigha, 2 katha 3 lecha in favour of Late Dhoda Goala at a cost of Rs. 400/- and left the place and the defendants have been possessing the suit land for more than 12 years without any intervention. The defendants also denied the execution of Sale Deed by Masad Goala, the original owner of the land in favour of the plaintiff and stated that such deed was fraudulent. Masad Goala who was arrayed as defendant No. 20(ka) also filed a separate written statement denying execution of the Sale Deed No. 3900 in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of the above pleadings, learned Munsiff framed the following issues: (1) Whether there is any cause of action? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? (3) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppels and acquiescence? (4) Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? (5) Whether the suit is barred by adverse possession? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? (3) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppels and acquiescence? (4) Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? (5) Whether the suit is barred by adverse possession? (6) Whether Masad Goala executed a registered Deed of sale dated 20/3/75 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of land described in schedule ‘Ka’ to the plaint and delivered possession? (7) Whether the plaintiff has title and possession over the suit land? (8) What relief, if any is the plaintiff entitled to? 4. Both the parties adduced evidence and after hearing both the sides, learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Civil Judge and the learned Civil Judge by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal reversing the judgment of the learned Munsiff and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff/respondents. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, the defendant/appellants have preferred the instant second appeal. 5. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for hearing. 1. Whether on the basis of the alleged executed Sale Deed the plaintiff acquired right, title and interest over the suit land? 2. Whether in the absence of any evidence of attesting witness, the execution of the Sale stood duly proved? 3. Whether the transaction of the sale without delivering of possession was complete? 6. I have heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides. 7. Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants basically urged one point before this Court, that the Sale Deed allegedly executed by Masad Goala, on the basis of which, the plaintiffs claimed their title was denied by the vendor Masad Goala and the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the Sale Deed (Ext. ‘Ka’) as per law. Learned counsel, Ms. Bhattacharjee submitted that both the trial court and the first appellate court came to the finding that execution of Sale Deed by Masad Goala was proved. 8. ‘Ka’) as per law. Learned counsel, Ms. Bhattacharjee submitted that both the trial court and the first appellate court came to the finding that execution of Sale Deed by Masad Goala was proved. 8. The crux of the controversy in this second appeal, as surfaced from the submission of both the sides as well as the substantial question of law revolves around the question whether execution of Sale Deed No. 3901 being the basis of title of the plaintiff, had been duly proved. The admitted fact is that Masad Goala was the original owner or the suit land. The plaintiff (PW-1) averred in the pleadings and deposed on oath that the suit land was purchased by Bhakta Goala, the original plaintiff and predecessor of the present appellants from the owner Masad Goala, who sold the suit land by executing registered Sale Deed No. 3901. The Sale Deed had been proved as Ext.3 In order to prove execution of the Sale Deed, the plaintiffs also examined the scribe of the Sale Deed, one Kamakhya Dey as PW-6. 9. PW-6 categorically stated in his evidence that he knew both seller and purchaser and he prepared the Sale Deed. He also stated that after writing the Sale Deed, he read over and explained the contents of the deed to both the parties and he himself obtained thumb impression of the vendor, Masad Goala in the Sale Deed. He also proved his signature in the Sale Deed as Ext. 3(1) and 3(2) as writer of the Deed. PW-6 further stated, that as he personally knew the vendor, he also identified the vendor before the registering authority. PW-6 also proved his endorsement with regard to obtaining thumb impression of the vendor and deposed that he obtained the thumb impression of the vendor and marked his endorsement on the thumb impression as Ext. 3(4) and 3(5). 10. The plea of the defendant was that, they were possessing the suit land for long time and the Sale Deed, Ext.3 was a fraudulent one. The vendor of the Sale Deed was also made a party to the suit, who filed a separate written statement and in his written statement, the vendor, Masad Goala denied execution of the Sale Deed No. 3900 in favour of the plaintiff. The vendor of the Sale Deed was also made a party to the suit, who filed a separate written statement and in his written statement, the vendor, Masad Goala denied execution of the Sale Deed No. 3900 in favour of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention here, that the number of Sale Deed executed by Masad Goala, in respect of the suit land was Sale Deed No. 3901 and not 3900. Vendor Masad Goala in his written statement did not mention anything about the Sale Deed No. 3901 executed in favour of the plaintiffs. The author of the Sale Deed, Masad Goala, though filed a written statement, he did not come to the dock to testify himself in support of his written statement. What is important to note is that though, the vendor Masad Goala never denied the execution of Ext.3, the Sale Deed in respect of the suit land, both the courts below proceeded on the premise that Masad Goala denied execution of the Sale Deed (Ext.3) and learned first appellate court also took adverse presumption against the vendor Masad Goala for avoiding the witness box. Though defendants in their written statement alleged that the Sale Deed (Ext.3) purportedly executed by Masad Goala was fraudulent, particulars of fraud were not stated in the pleading as per requirement of Order 6 Rule 4 Cr.PC, nor any evidence was adduced to that effect. That apart, when the author of the deed himself being a party to the suit, did neither raise any plea of fraud with regard to execution of Ext.3, Sale Deed nor denied the execution of the deed, defendants being third party were not entitled to raise the plea of fraud. 11. What is therefore abundantly clear is that the vendor and executor of the Sale Deed (Ext.3) never denied the execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, Masad Goala being a party to the suit, having filed written statement without denying the specific plea of the plaintiff with regard to their claim of purchase of the suit land vide Ext. 3 and also choosing to avoid the witness box could logically raise the only presumption, that the vendor Masad Goala admitted the execution of Ext.3, the Sale Deed No. 3901. 3 and also choosing to avoid the witness box could logically raise the only presumption, that the vendor Masad Goala admitted the execution of Ext.3, the Sale Deed No. 3901. It is no doubt true, as submitted by the learned counsel referring to Section 101 of the Evidence Act that when a party asserts a facts and desires the court to give a judgment on such fact, it is the burden of such party to prove such fact and such burden does not shift. There is no quarrel with regard to the above proposition of law. Execution of the Sale Deed, Ext.3 had been duly proved, as mentioned above, through none other than the writer of the deed, PW-6, as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act and as such the plaintiff cannot be held to have failed to discharge its burden to prove the Sale Deed. Although, both the courts below were proceeding on the premise that Masad Goala in his written statement denied execution of the Sale Deed, Ext.3, the written statement of Masad Goala makes it abundantly clear that he never denied execution of Sale Deed No. 3901 involved in the instant case. 12. Learned Munsiff also accepted the evidence adduced by the plaintiff with regard to execution of Sale Deed. However, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that delivery of possession was not proved and therefore, sale was incomplete. It is suffice to say, that delivery of possession is not a pre-condition for conveying title in respect of immovable property, value of which is more than Rs. 100/-. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that transfer in case of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees or upward can be made only by a registered instrument and delivery of possession is not an essential condition for such transfer, though, transfer of immovable property, value of which is less than Rs. 100/- can be effected by delivery of possession. [see Legal heirs of Purna Ch. Deka v. Prasanta Deka, 2017 (3) GLT 413, Sheo Prasad Chauhan v. Jayradha Das, 2015 (5) GLT 347 also see Manmohan Ranjan Tribedi v. Gopal Krishna (2006) 2 GLR 565]. Therefore, the finding of the learned Munsiff that sale was incomplete for want of delivery of possession was not legally correct. [see Legal heirs of Purna Ch. Deka v. Prasanta Deka, 2017 (3) GLT 413, Sheo Prasad Chauhan v. Jayradha Das, 2015 (5) GLT 347 also see Manmohan Ranjan Tribedi v. Gopal Krishna (2006) 2 GLR 565]. Therefore, the finding of the learned Munsiff that sale was incomplete for want of delivery of possession was not legally correct. Be that as it may, learned Appellate Court also came to the finding on the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, that execution of the Sale Deed was duly proved by the plaintiffs and the burden of the plaintiffs in terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act was discharged. Thus, the concurrent finding of both the court below was that the Sale Deed executed by Masad Goala in favour of the plaintiffs was duly proved. Since, authorship or execution of the Sale Deed is a question of fact and learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were of concurrent finding that execution of Sale Deed (Ext.3) was duly proved, such concurrent findings with regard to the question of fact being execution of Sale Deed is certainly not amenable to challenge in the second appeal. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law No. 1 & 3 are answered in affirmative and in favour of the plaintiffs. 13. Section 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72 of the Evidence Act provides the mode of proving a document, which is required by law to be attested, which reads as under: “68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.—If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. 69. Proof where no attesting witness found.—If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person. 70. 70. Admission of execution by party to attested document.—The admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested. 71. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution.—If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence. 72. Proof of document not required by law to be attested.—An attested document not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested.” 14. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act does not require a Sale Deed to be attested and therefore a Sale Deed is not a document required by law to be attested. A plain reading of Section 72 of the Evidence Act makes it abundantly clear, that when a document is not required by law to be attested, even if such document is attested by witness, it can be proved, as if it was unattested, meaning thereby, when a document is not required by law to be attested, it is not necessary to prove such document by examining any attesting witness. Sale Deed is a document which law does not require to be attested, which is amply clear from the provision of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, defining the sale and how a sale is made. When law does not require a Sale Deed to be attested, examination of attesting witness is not an essential condition to prove execution of Sale Deed, which can be proved like any other document. Even if a Sale Deed is attested by a witness, in view of Section 72 of the Evidence, it shall be presumed to be an unattested document which can be proved like any other document. The substantial question of law No. 2 is accordingly answered in affirmative and in favour of the plaintiffs. 15. The Sale Deed (Ext.3) executed by Masad Goala, the original owner in favour of the original plaintiff Bhakta Goala (since deceased) being the basis of title of the plaintiffs, having been duly proved, there can be no doubt on the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land and as such, the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate court cannot be faulted. 16. 16. In view of what has been stated above, the second appeal is found devoid of merit and dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 17. Send down the LCR.