JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The appellants have preferred this Second Appeal against the judgment dated 29.06.2004 and decree dated 14.07.2004 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Rajmahal in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1994, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 27.09.1994 passed by Sub-Judge, Rajmahal in Title Suit No. 47 of 1991 was confirmed by the appellate court. 3. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that the sale deed no. 136 of 1983 of Rajmahal Sub-Registry Office is fraudulent so far as the suit land is concerned and for declaration that the said sale deed did not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the defendant first party with regard to the suit land, and also for confirmation of possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit land, cost of the suit land and other relief. 4. It is admitted case of both the parties that the appellant/plaintiff executed registered sale deed no. 136 of 1983 in favour of the defendant first party on 08.01.1983. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he executed the said registered sale deed in respect of dag no.37 measuring an area of 8 kathas 9 dhurs only. 5. It is the case of the respondent/defendant that the said sale deed was executed besides dag no.37, dag no. 208 under jamabandi no. 344 having area of 1 bigha 8 dhurs, which is the suit land. 6. On the basis of above admitted position, the trial court entered into the lis and framed issues to decide the lis. After considering the exhibits and evidences adduced by the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant came to the finding that the appellant/plaintiff has not been able to prove his case with regard to execution of the sale deed in the plaint and, therefore, Title Suit No. 47 of 1991 was dismissed. 7. Aggrieved with this judgment, the appellants filed Title Appeal No. 21 of 1994 before 1st Additional District Judge, Rajmahal. The appellate court below examined the judgment of the trial court and issue decided by the trial court. The appellate court has framed issues for determination of the case, which is reflected from paragraph 9 of the judgment of the appellate court below. The appellate court below examined the judgment of the trial court and issue decided by the trial court. The appellate court has framed issues for determination of the case, which is reflected from paragraph 9 of the judgment of the appellate court below. The appellate court below after examining the evidences of the parties found that the entire evidence adduced by P.W.2 and portions of evidence adduced by P.W.3 are beyond pleading of the appellant/plaintiff and came to the finding that testimony of the witnesses are not admissible in evidence. Apart from P.W.1, there is no other evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his contention that the suit land has been fraudulently incorporated in the sale deed. The evidence of the appellant/plaintiff in this respect is not convincing, as though he has stated in his examination-in-chief that he did not sale the suit land to the defendant first party and he instructed accordingly to the scribe of the sale deed in his cross examination that he has failed to corroborate the same as he stated that he does not know whether the scribe wrote the sale deed as per his instruction or not. Though he stated that he did not get the sale deed read over to him, yet he pleaded ignorance to the question of the defence as to why he did not get the sale deed read over before executing the same. 8. On the other hand, the witness of defence (DW1) defendant first party himself has categorically stated that the contents of the sale deed was read over and explained to the appellant/plaintiff. Besides DW1, D.W.2-the scribe of sale deed and D.W.3-attesting witness of the sale deed, have categorically stated in their examination-in-chief that the contents of the sale deed was read over by the appellant/plaintiff. These portions of the testimony of D.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were not even challenged specifically in their cross-examination by giving them any specific denial suggestion. Moreover, the appellant/plaintiff did not contend that he did not execute the sale deed. He admitted execution of sale deed and on going before the Sub-Registrar and accepting the consideration amount of Rs.3,000/-and as such case of fraudulently incorporation of a land in a sale deed is highly unlike as the Sub-Registrar, who is a Government officer, is unlikely to have colluded with the beneficiary of the sale deed. He admitted execution of sale deed and on going before the Sub-Registrar and accepting the consideration amount of Rs.3,000/-and as such case of fraudulently incorporation of a land in a sale deed is highly unlike as the Sub-Registrar, who is a Government officer, is unlikely to have colluded with the beneficiary of the sale deed. Moreover, there is no allegation against the Sub-Registrar that he being in league will beneficiary of the sale deed. Though the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that he negotiated for the sell bearing dag no.37 only in presence of the witnesses Aazad Sk. And Sagar Ali Sk., but there is no plausible explanation on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff as to why he did not take any steps to examine them or procure their attendance through court for the purpose of evidence. The appellant/plaintiff in his examination-in-chief has not stated anything about the possession of the suit land. Though in his cross-examination, he has sated that he is possessing the suit land, but he could not state the manner of any possession. He stated that he is also possessing the land bearing dag no.37 even though he had admitted that he sold the same to defendant no.1 by registered sale deed no. 136 of 1983. The appellant/plaintiff has not been able to prove his possession with regard to dag no.37 and no other witness has stated anything in support of possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit land. On the other hand, D.W.1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that the appellant/plaintiff has delivered the possession of the suit land consequent upon the execution of sale deed no. 136 of 1983. These portions of the testimony of D.W.1 has not been specifically challenged in his cross-examination by giving him denial suggestion. The appellant/plaintiff executed the sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of the suit land and, hence, the accrual presumption is that the defendant is also having possession over the suit land. On the discussions of the above witnesses of both the parties, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit land and also failed to prove that the suit land has fraudulently been executed in the sale deed no. 136 of 1983 and found that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and as such dismissed the Title Appeal No. 21 of 1994. 136 of 1983 and found that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and as such dismissed the Title Appeal No. 21 of 1994. Being aggrieved with this judgment, the appellant has filed Second Appeal before this Court. 9. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants argues that the trial court as well as the appellate court are failed to consider the evidences adduced by the appellant/plaintiff in right perspective. He submits that there is enough evidence on the record to show that the sale deed was fraudulently executed with regard to dag no.37, plot no. 208. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the trial court as well as the appellate court have entered into deciding the lis and framed the issues for deciding the same. The appellate court has also determined the fresh issues as per provision under Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C. The evidences of the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant have been taken care of and discussed at length by both the courts below and there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his case. In view of the well settled proposition of law with regard to Second Appeal, this Court is not inclined to enter into discussion of the evidence, which have already been taken care of by both the courts below. This Court further finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed.