JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the original defendant to challenge a judgment and decree dated 03.05.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Tripura, Agartala as confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by a judgment dated 16.06.2016. 2. Brief facts may be noted at the outset: The respondent Smt. Namita Das is the mother of the appellant Sumit Kr. Das. She had filed Title Suit No. 64 of 2011 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) against the appellant for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit land and that the instrument of gift was void and be cancelled. These prayers were based on her averments in the plaint that after the death of her husband the plaintiff and the defendant lived together. Being a younger son he used to take care of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff and the defendant shifted to a rented premise in Agartala. The plaintiff was the owner of land admeasuring .0720 acres, more particularly described in Schedule-A to the plaint (referred to as suit land) after the death of her husband. After the mother and son shifted to Agartala, the defendant son started constructing a house on the suit land. Upon completion of the house both of them shifted there. She thereafter fell ill and developed high blood pressure and heart disease sometime in the month of July, 2007. Out of love and affection she desired to bequeath 2(two) gandas of land out of the suit land to the defendant by way of a will. The defendant himself brought a deed writer who prepared the document which was signed by her and duly registered on 21.08.2007. However, the document which was prepared was one of a gift and not a will. Thus, the defendant had fraudulently got the said gift deed executed by the plaintiff. She desired to grant only 2(two) gandas of the total land and that too after her death. Instead the defendant fraudulently obtained her signature on a gift deed transferring the entire land to him during her lifetime. The plaintiff was unaware about the same. However, when she received a notice for mutation, she raised an objection on 01.12.2009, thereafter tried to resolve the issues with her son which having failed she was compelled to file the said suit. 3. The plaintiff was unaware about the same. However, when she received a notice for mutation, she raised an objection on 01.12.2009, thereafter tried to resolve the issues with her son which having failed she was compelled to file the said suit. 3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Allegation of fraudulent execution of gift deed was denied. He contended that after his marriage the relationship with the mother and daughter-in-law was strained and, therefore, the plaintiff had taken recourse to the said litigation. He contended that the gift deed was executed by his mother with full consciousness. She was present before the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the document. She herself had appointed the deed writer to prepare the document. 4. Plaintiff was examined as PW-1. She repeated the averments made in the plaint in her deposition in form of sworn affidavit. In the cross-examination she had admitted that the defendant was residing with her after the death of her husband. He got married in the year 2009. After about 5(five) months from the date of the marriage, they started residing separately. The defendant started misbehaving with her. She not only admitted her signature on the gift deed but also that she had visited the office of the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration of the document. 5. The daughter of the plaintiff i.e. the sister of the defendant was examined as PW-2. She claimed that her mother had desired to create a document of will. However, the defendant in connivance with the deed writer had prepared a gift deed and obtained the mother's signature fraudulently. 6. Defendant examined himself as DW-1. In his sworn affidavit he had made the same declaration as in the written statement. In the cross-examination, he admitted that his mother was suffering from various ailments such as high blood pressure, heart problems etc. He stated that his mother had engaged the deed writer and not him. He denied that the gift deed was not executed by his mother voluntarily. 7. DW-2, Prabir Chakraborty deposed that the plaintiff had told him more than once that she wanted to gift the suit land to the defendant. In the cross-examination he agreed that he was a close friend of the defendant. 8. DW-3, Manik Ch. Deb was a deed writer. 7. DW-2, Prabir Chakraborty deposed that the plaintiff had told him more than once that she wanted to gift the suit land to the defendant. In the cross-examination he agreed that he was a close friend of the defendant. 8. DW-3, Manik Ch. Deb was a deed writer. He deposed that he has been a deed writer since 25 years. He is sitting in the same room with other deed writers Chandan Kar and Parimal Deb. He was an attesting witness to the registered gift deed in question which was written by Sri Chandan Kar at the request of the executor Smt. Namita Das. Chandan Kar had introduced him to Namita Das on the date of registration of the document on which day he had put his signature on the last page of the deed as an attesting witness at the request of the executor. Before putting his signature he had made necessary inquiries about the nature of the document and the contents thereof. Smt. Namita Das told him that under the said gift deed she was transferring her property to her son. 9. DW-4, Sajal Chakraborty was the L.D. Clerk working in the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Agartala. He appeared before the Court along with the relevant volume containing registration of the document. He produced a copy of the extract thereof. 10. DW-7, Parimal Deb was also a deed writer. According to his deposition he had prepared the gift deed on a stamp paper as requested by Namita Das. He had signed the document as a maker of the deed. The document was attested by the witnesses. In his presence, the executor had explained the contents of the deed to Chandan Kar. He had witnessed Namita Das put her signature on the document. 11. This in a nutshell was the evidence on record. The trial Court had raised following issues: "I) Is the suit maintainable in law as well as in facts? (II) Has the plaintiff right, title and interest over the suit land as owner? (III) Has the plaintiff been dispossessed from the suit land by the defendant Sri Sumit Kumar Das and his agents? (IV) Whether the defendant Sri Sumit Kumar Das obtained a registered Gift Deed bearing no. 1-6009 on 21-08-2007 from the plaintiff Smt. Namita Das in respect of the suit land practicing fraud and also by misrepresenting the plaintiff? (III) Has the plaintiff been dispossessed from the suit land by the defendant Sri Sumit Kumar Das and his agents? (IV) Whether the defendant Sri Sumit Kumar Das obtained a registered Gift Deed bearing no. 1-6009 on 21-08-2007 from the plaintiff Smt. Namita Das in respect of the suit land practicing fraud and also by misrepresenting the plaintiff? (V) Whether the MR Proceeding bearing no. 20/277/2007, dated 21-09-07 in respect of the suit land is wrong, illegal and liable to be cancelled? (VI) Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for in her plaint? 12. All these issues were answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed. Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would show that it is driven more by emotions than logic. A short passage from the said judgment would be sufficient to prove this point: "13. Every society is made up of blocks of family units. The stronger each block is, the stronger the structure of the society. Families are thus the building blocks upon which rests the fate of society. For the development of good families, the mother plays a vital role. Many women today have aspirations of progress in their careers, and degrees in various fields. However, it is indisputable that the most important achievement of a mother is the raising of sensible, virtuous children who will then move on to build other strong blocks for society. It has been said that it is easy to bear children but it is difficult to raise them well. In that lies the challenge for all mothers. A mother's love is unmatched. Whether young or old, healthy or handicapped, troublesome or obedient, the child is still beloved to the mother. This love may be displayed in various forms. Sometimes children misinterpret the scoldings and rebukes to be a sign of lack of love. It is important to assure the child that he is always loved, even when his behavior warrants disciplinary measures. Such a child becomes confident and happy, and will never seek solace elsewhere. The love of the mother becomes a source of happiness and peace at home. Children feel attached to the home because of the mother. A mother gives up a great deal for the sake of the child. She gives up her time, her sleep, her pleasures etc. Such a child becomes confident and happy, and will never seek solace elsewhere. The love of the mother becomes a source of happiness and peace at home. Children feel attached to the home because of the mother. A mother gives up a great deal for the sake of the child. She gives up her time, her sleep, her pleasures etc. to ensure that the child is all right. Nobody comes even close to doing what a mother does for her child. That is why it is said that it is only with help of the Almighty that one can thank the mother for all her sacrifice and efforts. It is for that reason unbelievable that a mother will drag her son to the Court of Law claiming her right over her acquired property to establish the dishonest role played by her son." 13. The appellate Court examined the evidence on record more dispassionately. Learned Judge found the evidence of the plaintiff reliable and discarded the evidence of the defendant and his witnesses on the ground of internal inconsistencies. 14. At the time of admission of appeal following substantial questions of law were framed: "[i] Whether the finding of the trial court in respect of the limitation is sustainable on the touchstone of the proved fact and Section 3 of the Limitation Act? [ii] Whether by not appreciating the evidence adduced by the appellant the findings as returned by both the courts below are rendered perverse?" 15. In such background, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below have committed serious error in blindly accepting the version of the plaintiff discarding that of the defendant which was duly supported by independent evidence. He submitted that the decisions of the said Courts are more driven by emotions than application of legal principles. The Courts ought to have seen that it was only after the marriage of the defendant that the mother's approach changed. All along she was aware about the nature of the document which was created as per her own will. The original document was produced by the plaintiff before the Court meaning thereby she was in possession of the said document all throughout after its execution. She could not have claimed ignorance of the contents thereof. She does not claim to be illiterate person. The original document was produced by the plaintiff before the Court meaning thereby she was in possession of the said document all throughout after its execution. She could not have claimed ignorance of the contents thereof. She does not claim to be illiterate person. Had the defendant any intention of defrauding the plaintiff, he would not have allowed her to retain the original document. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal contending that two Courts below have come to concurrent findings of facts which cannot be disturbed in second appeal. In this context, he relied on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Hero Vinoth (Minor) vrs. Seshammal reported in (2006) 5 SCC 545 . 17. Two questions of law framed by the Court pertain to limitation in filing the suit and on appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below. In my opinion, both the questions overlap. Answer to one will automatically decide the other. If the appreciation of evidence at the hands of the Courts below was correct, the suit was not barred by limitation since as per Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when a suit is based on a fraud of the defendant the period of limitation would not begin to run unless the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or with reasonable diligence would have discovered it. The entire issue thus boils down to the question whether the execution of the document in question was a fraudulent act on the part of the defendant or that the plaintiff had consciously and willingly executed the said document. 18. In this context, the plaintiff does not dispute her signature on the document or that she was present before the Sub-Registrar at the time of its registration. She only contends that she desired to execute a will bequeathing a part of the suit land to the defendant after her death and not a gift deed of the entire land. Except for her own deposition she had sought support from the deposition of her daughter who had no information other than what according to her was told to her by her mother. 19. As against this, the defendant had examined himself, his neighbours as well as three more witnesses namely the deed writer (DW-6), the attesting witness (DW-3) as well as the employee from the Sub-Registrar's office (DW-4). 19. As against this, the defendant had examined himself, his neighbours as well as three more witnesses namely the deed writer (DW-6), the attesting witness (DW-3) as well as the employee from the Sub-Registrar's office (DW-4). DW-7, the deed writer had deposed that he had prepared the deed at the request of the plaintiff. He had signed the document as a maker of the deed. The plaintiff had signed the document in his presence. She had also explained the contents thereof to the witness DW-4. DW-4 had also given a similar version of having put his signature as an attesting witness in the office of the Sub-Registrar in presence of the plaintiff. He had inquired about the nature of the document and contents thereof from her before putting his signature. He was introduced to her by DW-7, the deed writer. 20. These important aspects of the matter were completely overlooked by the Courts below. As noted, the trial Court was driven completely by emotions. The assessment of the first appellate Court is more analytical, nevertheless suffers from serious errors. Most importantly, none of the Courts weighed an important factor of the document in question being produced by the plaintiff herself before the Court. She was thus all the while in possession of the said document. This factor is significant for two purposes. Firstly, this would substantially weaken her theory of being unaware of the contents of the document till the notice of mutation was received by her from the Government office. The deed is dated 21.08.2007. She received the notice sometime in November or December, 2009. Thus, for nearly two years she was in possession of the document but claimed that she was unaware about the contents thereof. Equally, importantly this would also substantially demolish her allegation of fraudulent intention on part of her son. If the defendant desired to defraud the mother by creating a gift deed in guise of a will, he would normally not leave the document that too in original in possession of the mother. His version that after his marriage the relation between the mother and the daughter-in-law was strained is virtually admitted by the plaintiff. In the cross-examination, she agreed that till the marriage her son was residing with her but about 5(five) months into the marriage they started residing separately. The marriage took place sometime in the year 2009. 21. His version that after his marriage the relation between the mother and the daughter-in-law was strained is virtually admitted by the plaintiff. In the cross-examination, she agreed that till the marriage her son was residing with her but about 5(five) months into the marriage they started residing separately. The marriage took place sometime in the year 2009. 21. I am conscious that a second appeal rests on consideration of substantial questions of law. Re-appreciation of evidence is not open at second appeal stage. However, when the appreciation of evidence suffers from perversity, the same would also take shape of a question of law. The respondent cannot take the shelter of concurrent findings of facts since I find that the trial Court has proceeded entirely emotionally as can be seen from the portion of the judgment of the trial Court which is quoted earlier. The first appellate Court totally ignored most significant aspects of the matter highlighted hereinabove and thus came to perverse findings. As a rare and exceptional exercise, such findings shall have to be reversed. 22. As a registered document the onus on the plaintiff was greater to establish that she was misled into signing a wrong document. Having admitted her signature on the document, having admitted her presence before the office of Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the document and having admitted the possession of the original document, the plaintiff had a heavier burden to discharge which, in my opinion, she completely failed. She does not claim to be an illiterate person unable to read the document. The evidence of the defendant duly supported by independent witnesses could not have been discarded by trying to artificially draw some minor inconsistencies. 23. For such reasons, impugned judgments are set aside. The original suit of the respondent herein stands dismissed. 24. Appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.