JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Bhowmik and Mr. Soumendu Roy, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Both these appeals, being RSA 39/2015 and RSA 41/2015 are combined for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the same person executed two sale-deeds, viz. the sale-deed No. I-3709 dated 25.07.2009 and the sale-deed No. I-3708 dated 25.07.2009 at his residence in favour of the same person namely, Dhiman Debbarma, respondent No. 1. Those deeds were sought declared void claiming that there was no execution, but by practicing fraud, those were created. 3. The land as demised in those sale-deeds are not the subject matter of dispute. Those lands were jointly owned by one Rajib Debbarma and one Sangita Debbarma. It is the case of the defendants, the respondents herein, that Sangita Debbarma constituted Rajib Debbarma her attorney to execute those sale-deeds. Sangita Debbarma is the proforma defendant in the suit and she is alive. After death of Rajib Debbarma, the appellants instituted the suits seeking declaration that those title deeds are void, manufactured and were not executed by Rajib Debbarma. 4. According to the plaintiff appellants, who filed the Title Suit No. 38/2010 in respect of the sale-deed No. I-3709 and the Title Suit No. 37/2010 in respect of the sale-deed No. I-3708, Rajib Debbarma, husband of one appellant No. 1 was critically ill and she had managed funds from different sources for his treatment. Temporarily, they were away from Agartala and after the first spell of treatment when they came to Agartala, they found that to their dismay that house was under lock and key. She broke that lock and entered again in the possession of the house. Later on, the defendant No. 1, Dhiman Debbarma asked her to vacate the room and claimed that Rajib Debbarma had sold the property to him and as such they did not have any right to continue in possession. 5. According to Ms Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is the clear case of the plaintiff that no consideration money was paid and by practicing fraud, the defendant No. 1 created the sale-deeds to the serious prejudice of the plaintiffs. 6. At this juncture, when this Court confronted Ms. 5. According to Ms Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is the clear case of the plaintiff that no consideration money was paid and by practicing fraud, the defendant No. 1 created the sale-deeds to the serious prejudice of the plaintiffs. 6. At this juncture, when this Court confronted Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel that whether the details of the fraud has been laid down in the plaint, she has candidly submitted that except the statement that the sale-deeds were manufactured no statement in detail is available in the plaint. Law in this regard is well settled in terms of the provisions of Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC that if fraud is alleged against a person, the transaction of fraud shall elaborately be laid down in the plaint so that the fraud can be properly adjudicated by the civil court. 7. Ms Deb Gupta, learned counsel has further submitted that Rajib Debbarma, the deceased husband of the plaintiff was not of sound mind to execute the sale-deeds as he was suffering from a critical illness and as such those deeds are to be declared void. 8. The defendants, by filing the written statement, have laid down how the sale-deeds were executed and under what circumstances. The defendant No. 1 has categorically stated that Rajib Debbarma was a school teacher under the Government of Tripura and was suffering from critical illness and he had no money for better treatment at Kolkata. He wanted to survive and for that reason he proposed to sell out the properties in his name. Sangita Debbarma, with whom he was the joint owner of the said property, constituted him her attorney, so that Rajib Debbarma since deceased could dispose of the properties. In presence of his well-wishers, the consideration money was settled and the defendant No. 1 paid the consideration money in full on the date of execution of the sale-deeds, i.e. on 25.07.2009 and the acknowledgement has been recorded in the sale-deeds. On the following day, i.e. 26.07.2009, Rajib Debbarma with his relatives and wife left for Kolkata for treatment. When they came back and requested the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 allowed them to stay temporarily in the residence, at that time, owned by the defendant No. 1. Later on, after death of Rajib Debbarma, the plaintiff turned volte-face and refused to vacate the land. When they came back and requested the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 allowed them to stay temporarily in the residence, at that time, owned by the defendant No. 1. Later on, after death of Rajib Debbarma, the plaintiff turned volte-face and refused to vacate the land. Not only that, the plaintiff instituted the present suits. The defendant No. 1, the respondent No. 1 herein, has asserted that the deeds were drafted by one lawyer, namely, Bimal Deb (DW-4) and he himself identified Rajib Debbarma to the Commissioner as appointed by the District Sub-Registrar for purpose of registration of the sale-deeds. 9. That apart, the attesting witnesses had come to depose that the transaction of sale took place and both the attesting witnesses were very close to Rajib Debbarma. They have categorically stated that the consideration money was settled and they were witness to the execution of the questioned sale-deeds. 10. The most important witness is the Commissioner, namely, Somesh Debbarma, In-charge Sadar sub-Registry Office, DW-5, who sent for completing the process of registration. The Commissioner has stated in trial that he was appointed as the commissioner for verification and identification required for registration of sale-deeds and accordingly on the date, he went to Krishnanagar and verified and identified the executant. DW-7 has given his report and Bimal Deb, Advocate who drafted the questioned deeds, identified the executant of the sale-deeds to him. Rajib Debbarma executed the sale-deed and gave his thumb impression in front of him and thus, the said sale-deed was registered. 11. Ms Deb Gupta, learned counsel has supplemented by saying that Bimal Deb, DW-4, in his cross examination has stated that he did never know Rajib Debbarma and never talked to him about the execution of sale-deed. Rajib Debbarma had never given him any instruction for preparation of sale-deed. No consideration money was paid in front of him. But in his examination in chief, he has unequivocally stated that he prepared the sale-deeds and put the signature on those sale-deeds. 12. According to Ms Deb Gupta, it is apparent that the said identification was not proper. Hence, there was personation of Rajib Debbarma. No consideration money was paid in front of him. But in his examination in chief, he has unequivocally stated that he prepared the sale-deeds and put the signature on those sale-deeds. 12. According to Ms Deb Gupta, it is apparent that the said identification was not proper. Hence, there was personation of Rajib Debbarma. Ms Deb Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Janak Dulari Devi and Another vs. Kapildeo Rai and Another, (2011) 6 SCC 555 wherein the Apex court has held that unless equivalent of the property is paid, the sale-deed remains merely an agreement to be performed and will not be an instrument of complete sale. 13. The Apex Court has clarified by observing that where such practice is not prevalent, possession of the registration receipt by the vendor in absence of clear evidence does not lead to the inference that consideration has not been paid or that the title has not passed to the purchaser, even though recited in the deed of conveyance. 14. But in this case what this Court has observed is that the sale-deed was registered and according to the attesting witnesses, namely, Narayan Saha, DW-2 and Atul Prasad Saha, DW-3, they were present when Rajib Debbarma executed the sale-deeds. 15. Dhiman Debbarma, DW-1 has categorically stated that he paid the consideration money of Rs. 5,98,000/- against the sale-deed No. I-3708 and Rs. 3,25,000/- against the sale-deed No. I-3709. On that aspect, as stated, there was serious challenge but the trial court on over all assessment of the evidence as led, has observed that the defendant No. 1 has discharged his onus that the sale-deeds were executed by Rajib Debbarma. 16. The Commission as is appointed under Section 38 of the Registration Act takes care of the difficulty of a person who is by reason of bodily infirmity unable without risk or serious inconvenience to appear at the registration office, the registration officer shall either himself go to the house of the said person and examine him or issue commission for his examination. Considering the critical illness of the vendor, Rajib Debbarma when the commissioner was appointed, the court has to add value to the deposition of the commissioner. 17. The commissioner did not say a single word being the court witness against the process. 18. Considering the critical illness of the vendor, Rajib Debbarma when the commissioner was appointed, the court has to add value to the deposition of the commissioner. 17. The commissioner did not say a single word being the court witness against the process. 18. It has been noticed by this court that though the plaintiff-appellant has taken a position that the deeds were manufactured at the behest of the defendant No. 1 and Rajib Debbarma did not execute the sale-deeds, but they did not make any endeavour to challenge the handwriting over the said sale-deed. Absence of such challenge is conceivable inasmuch as the plaintiff-appellants have raised a plea that the executant of the sale-deeds was not mentally fit to cause execution of sale. But the commissioner has found him to be fit and he participated in the execution without any reservation, at least no adverse report in respect of his mental status is available in the evidence. 19. What this Court has further noticed is that as the co- owner 50% share of the property he sold out by those questioned sale-deeds. For the remainder of the share, he has constituted attorney by one Sangita Debbarma, the proforma defendant as the other co-owner. Though she was in the proceedings as a party, but she did not support the case of the plaintiff-appellant whereas she has a substantive stake on ownership over the suit property. 20. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment has for the same reason affirmed the findings of the trial court on observing that “the veracity of witnesses could not be shaken by the plaintiff-appellants. In fact, no material is found to disbelieve DW-5 according to whom the sale-deed was duly executed in presence of appellant No. 1. On the day of execution it was registered.” 21. In fact, no material is found to disbelieve DW-5 according to whom the sale-deed was duly executed in presence of appellant No. 1. On the day of execution it was registered.” 21. That apart, it has been observed that the attesting witnesses also supported the content of the sale-deed including the receipt of the consideration money and as such it has been further reiterated that on the basis of the law laid down by the apex court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 656 , wherein it has been held that for purpose of transferring the title delivery of possession is not a sine qua non, the title can be transferred by a properly stamped sale-deed which was fit for registration and thereafter registered. 22. The substantial question of law which was framed by this Court at the time of admitting these appeals is: “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court suffer from perversity?” 23. Having scrutinized the records and duly appreciated the submissions made by Ms Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, this Court does not find any perversity worth of interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Section 100 of the CPC. Thus, both the appeals fail and hence the appeals are dismissed. 24. Draw the decree accordingly and thereafter, send down the records.