JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. Heard Sri R. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S. Dey, learned counsel for the legal representative representing the legal heirs of respondent No. 1 who have been duly substituted vide order dated 11.01.2019, passed in I.A. (C)/1695/2018 by this Court. Also heard Sri G. Bordoloi, learned Government Advocate for the proforma respondents. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 38/2006, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 75/2005. 3. The brief facts of the case may be narrated as follows. a. The applicant was the defendant in the suit filed for declaration of rights, title, interest, affirmation of possession and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that suit land was originally owned by one Sri Kalika Prasad Das Purkayastha and vide the registered sale deed No. 1203 of 1929 dated 08.04.1929, Sri Jogendra Das had purchased the suit land. On the death of Sri Jogendra Das, the suit land (Ext. No. 1) was inherited by his legal heirs Jyotish Chandra Das, who is the father of the plaintiff. The said land came under the ownership of his wife and three sons including the plaintiff vide a Deed of Will (Ext. 2). In the amicable partition, the suit land fell within the share of the plaintiff. The K.V.S was trying to encroach on the part of the suit land on the North-Western part and accordingly, the said suit was instituted. The same was contested by the present appellant as defendant by filing a written statement wherein it was claimed that the suit land was a part of the land settled with the organization for purpose of constructing of permanent building of K.V. at Karimganj. The settlement order was dated 03.08.2003. b. The learned Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) vide the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2006 had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It may be mention that both the plaintiff and the defendant had adduced evidence through one PW each. Amongst the various issues framed, issue No. 3 would be relevant in this case. b. The learned Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) vide the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2006 had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It may be mention that both the plaintiff and the defendant had adduced evidence through one PW each. Amongst the various issues framed, issue No. 3 would be relevant in this case. The said issue was with regard to plaintiff's land holder right and possession in respect of suit land. The learned trail Court had held that the pleadings made in the plaint were not seen to have been denied by the defendant and from the exhibits, it was evident that the suit land in question was owned by the plaintiff whose title has been traced back to Kalika Prasad Das Purkayastha, the original owner of the land who had sold the land to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff vide the Exhibit 1 Sale Deed. c. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present appellant had preferred the first appeal before the learned Court of Civil Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 38/2006. It may be mentioned that State of Assam had also preferred Title Appeal No. 43/2006 and both the appeal were heard together. d. The learned First Appellate Court after discussing the pleadings and the materials exhibits had formulated certain points for determination including point No. 3 which reads as follows; "3. Whether the suit land attract the land described in the sale deed bide Ext. or plaintiff encroached it?" e. The learned First Appellate Court had taken into consideration the deposition of the DW-1 which was made on his cross examination that the K.V.S do not have any claim over the land beyond the boundary wall and pillars of the school and admittedly the suit land was out of the said boundary wall and pillars of the K.V.S. Based upon the aforesaid discussion, the appeal was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2007, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. f. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. This Court while admitting the appeal had formulated the following substantial question of law; "Whether right, title and interest of the plaintiff can be decreed on the basis of certified copy of a partition deed without proving the title deed?" 5. The records which were called for have also been perused. 6. 4. This Court while admitting the appeal had formulated the following substantial question of law; "Whether right, title and interest of the plaintiff can be decreed on the basis of certified copy of a partition deed without proving the title deed?" 5. The records which were called for have also been perused. 6. Sri Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the rigours of proving the certified copy have not been followed in the instant case more so when the exhibit No. 1 was prior to independence and the certified copy was obtained from the Bangladesh. He further submits that the boundaries of both the Exhibit No. 1 as well as the Exhibit No. 3, cannot be ascertained as to whether the suit land fell within the share of the plaintiff. Relying upon the settlement order, it is submitted by the learned counsel that an organization like K.V. will not have any personal interest so as to encroach the land of the private individual as the dispute in question is not between the two private individuals but between the one private individual and an organization. 7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of this Court passed in the case of Bhaskar Roy Choudhury and Another - Versus- Hironmoy Sekhar Das Astopati @ Roy Astopati and Others in Test.App. No. 2 of 2015. This Court in the said judgment has discussed as to how a certified copy issued by the authorities of the country of Bangladesh can be taken as valid piece of evidence in the suit in the Court of India. The manner of proof as prescribed in Sections 68, 69, 74, 76, 78 and 86 of the Evidence Act, 1972, as required for proving the sale has also been highlighted in the said judgment. 8. Sri Dey, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other had submits that on consideration of both the deposition and materials in the proceeding that there is no doubt on the ownership of the suit land. Referring to the written statement whereby the defendant got the scope to deal with the pleadings of the plaint, Sri Dey, learned counsel submits that there is no denial at all of the right and title pleaded in the plaint which was the foundation of the case of the plaintiff. Referring to the written statement whereby the defendant got the scope to deal with the pleadings of the plaint, Sri Dey, learned counsel submits that there is no denial at all of the right and title pleaded in the plaint which was the foundation of the case of the plaintiff. As regards the Settlement Order dated 30.08.2003, which has been mentioned in paragraph 11, it has been submitted that said Settlement Order was not proved in the proceeding at all and therefore, there was no foundation in the case projected by the defendants. It has further been urged that if the defendants had title on the strength of the Settlement Order dated 30.08.2003, the counter claim should have been lodged or at least such Settlement Order should have been proved in accordance with law, which was not done. 9. On the point of the limited power to be exercised by this Court while acting as a Second Appellate Court, learned counsel, Sri Dey submits that unless any glaring irregularity or perversity can be demonstrated in the judgment of the lower Courts, interfering should be sparingly made. Moreover in the instant case, finding of facts are concurrent in nature and the same have been reached by the learned Court below by appreciating the evidence and by examining the pleadings. 10. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Singh -Versus- Smt. Chhoti and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 266 , Sri Dey, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the manner of proving the documents which were presented as a secondary evidence. 11. Rival contentions of the learned counsels for the respective parties have been duly considered and the materials before this Court including the LCR, which have been perused. 12. It is seen that the trial Court while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff had taken into consideration all the materials on records including the certified copy of the sale deed dated 08.04.1929 and the certified copy of the memorandum of the legal inspection which were never challenged by the defendant in their written statement. The finding of the learned trial Court which has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court cannot be termed to be grossly erroneous and perverse. The finding of the learned trial Court which has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court cannot be termed to be grossly erroneous and perverse. As the second appellate Court, only because of the fact that an alternative view is available, the views of the learned Court below should not be substituted in a routine manner if such view is otherwise a plausible or possible view. 12. In the instant case, no glaring illegality or irregularity has been seen in the impugned judgment of the learned Court below. As mentioned above, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Singh (Supra) had laid down the difference between the certified copy and the original copy and in the instant case, Exhibit No. 1/sale of deed is the certified copy. Moreover, the DW in his cross examination has clearly deposed that the land of K.V. was up to the pillar and the boundary wall and not beyond that and had admitted that the suit land was beyond the suit land. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Court below cannot be said to be perverse finding. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference has been made out in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The substantial question of law stands answered in accordance with the observations made above. 13. Registry to transmit back the records, forthwith to the learned Court of Civil Judge, Karimganj. 14. It is needless to mention that the interim order passed in this proceeding, if any, stands vacated on passing of final order of dismissal of the appeal.