JUDGMENT : Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. The defendant No. 1 has preferred the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.6.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Additional Court at Burdwan in Title Suit No. 11 of 2011. 2. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for partition and for separation of shares claiming 1/3rd share in the suit properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the schedule property belonged to one Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay who was the father of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and the husband of the defendant No. 2. The said Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay died on 18.10.2009 leaving behind him surviving his two sons and the widow as his only heirs, heiresses and legal representatives. Upon the death of the said Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay, the suit properties devolved upon his sons and the widow each having 1/3rd share in the said property. After the death of the said Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay, disputes and differences cropped up between his heirs and heiress, and the plaintiff faced difficulties in ejmal possession of the suit properties. The proposal for partition made by the plaintiff was refused by the defendant No. 1. Finding no other alternative the plaintiff instituted the instant suit. 3. The defendant no. 1 contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the allegations contained in the plaint. It was specifically contended by the defendant No. 1 in the written statement that his father Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay, since deceased transferred his share in the plot being Dag No. 2319 measuring about 68 decimals in favour of the defendant No. 1 by executing a registered Deed of Gift dated 15.9.2008 and delivered possession of the same in favour of the defendant No. 1. 4. The defendant No. 2 i.e. the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 also filed a written statement in the instant suit. 5. The State of West Bengal though filed a written statement in the suit but did not contest the suit any further. 6. The learned Trial Judge by a judgment and decree dated June 26, 2013 was pleased to decree the said suit on contest in preliminary form against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and ex-parte against the defendant Nos. 3, 4, and 5. 6. The learned Trial Judge by a judgment and decree dated June 26, 2013 was pleased to decree the said suit on contest in preliminary form against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and ex-parte against the defendant Nos. 3, 4, and 5. The plaintiff's right, title and interest over 1/3rd share in the suit property was declared and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from disturbing the plaintiff in his peaceful possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The plaintiff further got a decree of partition in the preliminary form in respect of 1/3rd share in the suit property. The 1/3rd shares each of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property was also declared. The parties were directed to get the suit property partitioned by metes and bounds as per their respective shares failing which the parties were given liberty to move the court for getting the preliminary decree finalised as per law. 7. The defendant No.1 preferred the instant appeal against the said preliminary decree. 8. Mrs. Sulekha Mitra, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant No. 1/ appellant herein submitted that the learned Court below erred in law by holding that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 has 1/3rd share each in all the plots of land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint of the said suit. She further argued that the learned Court below failed to take into consideration the fact that the original owner of the suit property, namely, Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay since deceased during his lifetime transferred his right, title and interest in respect of the plot being Dag No. 2319 measuring about 68 decimals in favour of the defendant No. 1 by executing a registered Deed of Gift dated 15.9.2008. As such neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No. 2 has any manner of right, title, interest and possession in respect of the said plot being Dag No. 2319 and the defendant No. 1/ appellant herein has become exclusive owner of the said plot being Dag No. 2319 by virtue of the said Deed of Gift. 9. As such neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No. 2 has any manner of right, title, interest and possession in respect of the said plot being Dag No. 2319 and the defendant No. 1/ appellant herein has become exclusive owner of the said plot being Dag No. 2319 by virtue of the said Deed of Gift. 9. The learned Trial Judge held that though the defendant No. 1 has claimed his exclusive title over the suit plot being Dag No. 2319 within Mouja Nasigram under Police Station Bhatar in the District of Burdwan but he has failed to prove the said fact. It was further held that it is admitted that the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff as well as the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was the previous owner of the suit property and as such the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of partition in respect of his 1/3rd share in the suit property in the preliminary form. 10. It appears from the materials on record that the defendant No.1 has specifically pleaded in the written statement that Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay during his lifetime transferred his right, title and interest in respect of the plot being Dag No. 2319 measuring about 68 decimals in favour of the defendant No. 1 by executing a registered Deed of Gift dated 15.9.2008. The defendant No. 1 adduced evidence as D.W. 1 and has specifically stated in his evidence that Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay transferred his right, title and interest in respect of the plot being Dag No. 2319 measuring about 68 decimals in favour of the defendant No. 1 by executing a registered Deed of Gift dated 15.9.2008. The D.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that he has submitted the photo copy of the Deed of Gift in respect of the plot being Dag No. 2319 which has been executed by his father. It was further stated in cross-examination by the said witness that, if necessary, he may submit the original Deed of Gift. The defendant no. 1 also submitted the said deed on the date of argument and prayed for marking the same as an exhibit. 11. The learned Trial Judge, however, did not take into consideration the said Deed of Gift by relying upon the provisions laid down under Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant no. 1 also submitted the said deed on the date of argument and prayed for marking the same as an exhibit. 11. The learned Trial Judge, however, did not take into consideration the said Deed of Gift by relying upon the provisions laid down under Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was held by the learned Trial Judge that since the defendant no. 1 did not produce the documents upon which he relies upon in support of his defence nor did he pray for leave before filing the said documents, the Deed of Gift cannot be looked into. 12. The defendant no. 1 filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure being CAN 12409 of 2014. By filing the said application, the defendant No. 1/ appellant herein prayed for an order for production of the Deed of Gift dated 15.9.2008 executed by Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay, since deceased, in favour of the defendant no. 1/appellant herein in respect of the plot being Dag No. 2319. 13. The said application was directed to be heard along with the instant appeal by an order dated January 29, 2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. 14. In course of hearing of the instant appeal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant / respondent No.1 herein produced a letter dated 17.4.2019 written by Sri Subodh Kumar Chattopadhyay i.e. the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein and addressed to his learned Advocate stating that he accepts that Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay vide a registered Deed of Gift transferred the plot being Dag No. 2319 to the appellant. It was further stated in the said letter that he is relinquishing his claim over the said plot. 15. The defendant No.1 produced a photo copy of the said Deed of Gift dated 15.9.2008 at the time of adducing evidence. He also filed the original Deed of Gift before the learned Trial Court. The execution of the Deed of Gift by Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay in favour of the defendant No.1 is however admitted by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein and he has also relinquished his claim in respect of the said plot of land being Dag No. 2319. He also filed the original Deed of Gift before the learned Trial Court. The execution of the Deed of Gift by Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay in favour of the defendant No.1 is however admitted by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein and he has also relinquished his claim in respect of the said plot of land being Dag No. 2319. Though the appellant herein produced the original deed before the learned Court below at the time of argument but the learned Trial Court refused to admit the said deed into evidence. The defendant No.1 has stated in the application for additional evidence that the original deed was not available with him at the time of trial and as such the same could not be produced by him at the time of trial. The original Deed of Gift dated 15th September 2008 which was filed by the defendant No.1/appellant herein before the learned Court below is lying with the lower court records. The execution of the said Deed of Gift is admitted by the respondent. The original Deed of Gift was not available with the defendant no.1 at the time of adducing evidence. The same is also necessary for the purpose of effective adjudication of the instant appeal and for pronouncing judgment. As Such, the same is admitted into evidence and marked as "Exhibit-A". It appears from the said deed dated 15th September, 2008 executed by Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay in favour of the defendant No.1/ appellant herein that the Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyay transferred his right, title, and interest in respect of the plot being Dag No. 2319 measuring about 68 decimals within Mouja Nasigram under Police Station Bhatar in the District of Burdwan, in favour of the defendant No.1/ appellant herein. Thus, by virtue of the said deed the defendant No.1 acquired absolute right, title, interest and possession in respect of the said plot of land and neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.2 namely Rajlakshmi Chatterjee acquired any right, title and interest in respect of the plot being Dag No. 2319. Defendant no.1 / appellant herein also produced a photocopy of the deed dated 05th July, 2003 executed by Rajlakshmi Chatterjee i.e. the respondent No. 2 in favour of Sarmistha Chatterjee, i.e. added respondent No. 6. The preliminary decree was passed on June 26, 2013. Defendant no.1 / appellant herein also produced a photocopy of the deed dated 05th July, 2003 executed by Rajlakshmi Chatterjee i.e. the respondent No. 2 in favour of Sarmistha Chatterjee, i.e. added respondent No. 6. The preliminary decree was passed on June 26, 2013. Since the said transfer was made after the passing of the preliminary decree and the instant appeal is against the said preliminary decree, the transfer made by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondent No.6 has no impact while adjudicating the instant appeal. As such the said deed is not taken into consideration while deciding the instant appeal. Thus, the preliminary decree passed by the learned court below is modified only to the extent as indicated above. The defendant No. 1 has absolute right, title and interest in respect of the plot being Dag No. 2319 within Mouja Nasigram under Police Station Bhatar in the District of Burdwan, and the partition suit shall be treated to be dismissed, in so far as the said plot is concerned. The plaintiff, the defendant No.1 and the defendant No. 2 shall have 1/3rd share each in all the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint excepting the plot being Dag No. 2319. 16. There shall be no order as to cost. 17. The certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. 18. I agree.