ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By means of this appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 17.01.2018 delivered in Title Appeal No. 11 of 2017 by the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. 3. The facts which are relevant for appreciating the grounds of objection as raised in this appeal are that one Ashad Ullah was the original owner of the suit property pertaining to CS Plot No. 4969/5617 [corresponding to RS Plot No. 6943] under RS Khatian No. 2250/2 of Mouja-Baruakandi along with other lands. The suit property measures at 0.37 acres being tilla class of land. Ashad Ullah, as claimed by the plaintiffs, died in the year 1973 and Khatian was mutated in the name of his 8[eight] legal heirs including his deceased sons, namely Safi Ulla and Kudrat Ullah. Kudrat Ullah left 4[four] legal heirs being plaintiffs No. 6[a] to 6[c] and Prtima Bibi who died without any issue. The plaintiffs are Sunni Muslims. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed that being the legal heirs, they became the owner of the suit property after death of Ashad Ullah. In the year 2015 [sometime in October] the defendant of the suit and his associates entered into he suit land by ignoring the protest raised by the plaintiffs. They claimed to become the owner of the suit property by dint of one order of mutation. On 21.01.2016 and on 02.05.2016, the plaintiffs obtained certified copies of the order of mutation. According to them, the gift deeds purportedly executed by Ashad ullah were fraudulent created on the foundation that Ashad Ullah died in the year 1973 i.e. after 2 years of Bangladesh Liberation War which happened in 1971. In reality, no such gift deed was ever executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs. It has been further submitted that the land demised in the gift deed therefore, cannot be claimed by the defendant. By means of the suit being Title Suit No. 09 of 2016, the plaintiffs urged for a decree of declaration by declaring the gift deed dated 10.12.1979 as nullity and the order dated 18.08.2009 of the mutation proceeding being based on such gift deed is liable to be set aside. 4. By means of the suit being Title Suit No. 09 of 2016, the plaintiffs urged for a decree of declaration by declaring the gift deed dated 10.12.1979 as nullity and the order dated 18.08.2009 of the mutation proceeding being based on such gift deed is liable to be set aside. 4. The defendant-respondent by filing the written statement has categorically stated that Ashad Ullah was the lawful owner and allottee of the suit land/property along with other lands. It has been pleaded in the written statement that the defendant has been possessing the suit land by virtue of the registered gift deed No. 1-5195 dated 17.12.1979 executed by Ashad Ullah during his lifetime by constructing home thereon and living there with his family members. The suit land measuring 0.37 acres was mutated in the name of the defendant in Khatian No. 3738, out of total 0.40 acres of land as demised in the gift deed pertaining to RS Plot No. 6943 corresponding to CS Plot No. 4969/5617(p) as is covered by the said gift deed. 5. On the basis of those rival pleadings, as many as 9[nine] issues were framed including whether the plaintiffs do have right, title and interest over the suit land, whether the registered gift deed No. 1-5195 dated 17.12.1979 executed by Ashad Ullah and the order of mutation dated 18.08.2009 in Case No. 0460/2009 are fraudulent, illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and whether the plaintiffs’ name have been wrongly recorded in Khatian No. 2250/1, 2 and Whether the defendant had dispossessed the plaintiffs in the month of October, 2015 etc. 6. To prove their case, the plaintiffs and the defendant had adduced witnesses and admitted few documents, such as the copies of computerized Khatian, the impugned order of the mutation proceedings and the certified copy of the registered gift deed No. 1-5195 of 1979 [Exbt.9]. Even the defendant adduced witnesses [DW-1 to DW-4] and admitted the documentary evidence [Exbts.A to G] including the certified copy of the registered gift deed No. 1-5195 dated 17.12.1979 [Exbt.E]. 7. The trial court having appreciated the evidence has returned the findings that there is no dispute regarding the title of the original owner, namely Ashad Ullah over the suit land as described in the first schedule of the plaint. 7. The trial court having appreciated the evidence has returned the findings that there is no dispute regarding the title of the original owner, namely Ashad Ullah over the suit land as described in the first schedule of the plaint. This is also not in dispute that the defendant had applied for mutation of the suit land, measuring 0.40 acre on 05.06.2009 on the basis of one registered gift deed No. 1-5195 dated 17.12.1979 and the defendant got mutation of the said land by the order dated 18.08.2009 but for the land measuring 0.37 acres. A new Khatian being Khatian Non.3736[Exbt.5] has been opened in the name of the defendant against the plot No. 6943, corresponding to the old plot No. 4969/5617. So far the legality of the gift deed is concerned, it has been held that the said gift deed No. 1-5195 [Exbt.E] contains the thumb impression of Ashad Ullah and it was executed in favour of the defendant [Habib Mia] by transferring a land measuring 0.40 acres. It has been observed by the trial court that the said gift deed has been claimed to have been prepared after death of Ashad Ullah and thus, it cannot be believed as Ashad Ullah was not alive at the time of execution of the said gift deed. The plaintiffs could not produce any document that Ashad Ullah died before the date of execution of the said gift deed or other gift deeds. Simply some oral testimonies through PWs-1 to 3 have been placed in the evidence for showing that Ashad Ullah died in the year 1973. On the contrary, the defendant has proved 2[two] registered sale deeds being No. 1-7016 of 1975 [Exbt.F] and No. 1-4910 dated 25.10.1978 [Exbt.G] which were executed by Ashad Ullah. As the Exbts. F & G are the registered sale deeds for more than 30 years, the presumption was taken that those were genuine and thus, the trial court did not believe the story of the plaintiffs that Ashad Ullah died in the year 1973. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. It has been further observed that the gift deed executed in favour of the defendant cannot be stated to be fraudulent or was manufactured. As a result, the trial court did not find any irregularity in mutating the land as demised in the gift deed in favour of the defendant. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. It has been further observed that the gift deed executed in favour of the defendant cannot be stated to be fraudulent or was manufactured. As a result, the trial court did not find any irregularity in mutating the land as demised in the gift deed in favour of the defendant. Thus, the issues in that respect were decided against the plaintiffs. However, it has been held that the suit was maintainable, filed within time but other issues were negatived as foundation of the challenge against the gift deed could not be proved. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial court dated 25.02.2017 [delivered in Title Suit No. 9 of 2016], the plaintiffs filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, being Title Appeal No. 11 of 2017, in the court of the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. The said appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment by affirming the finding of the trial court. 9. The first appellate court has clearly observed that the plea of the plaintiff-appellants that the deed was forged and was not executed by Ashad Ullah cannot be accepted in view of trustworthy documentary evidence [Exbts. F & G]. It has been further observed that the existence of the registered deeds executed much after 1973 and its reference to the other documents has established that Ashad Ullah was alive at the time of execution of the gift deed. 10. The present appeal has been filed against the said appellate judgment dated 17.01.2018 and the said appeal was admitted by the order dated 14.06.2018 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the learned Courts below have misinterpreted, misunderstood and misconstrued the gift deed bearing No. 1-5195 dated 17.12.1979 [Exbt.9, Exbt.D and Exbt.E]? (ii) Whether the findings of both the Courts below on Exbt.1, Exbt.D and Exbt.E are perverse? Any other substantial question of law will be considered at the time of hearing. 11. When this court has confronted Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that how the substantial questions of law are relevant in the face of the grounds of challenge as raised by the plaintiff-appellants in their plaint. It is unambiguously clear that the plea as raised in the case is that the gift deed bearing No. 1-5195 dated 17.12.1979, [Exbt.9, Exbt.D and Exbt.E] was not executed by Ashad Ulla, the original owner. It is unambiguously clear that the plea as raised in the case is that the gift deed bearing No. 1-5195 dated 17.12.1979, [Exbt.9, Exbt.D and Exbt.E] was not executed by Ashad Ulla, the original owner. But according to the plaintiff-appellants, the said deeds are forged. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that the substantial questions of law ought to have been-whether the evidence as laid, has been read perversely to hold that on 17.12.1979 Ashad Ullah was alive. The case of the plaintiffs is that sometime in 1973 [no specific date has been asserted] Ashad Ullah died and his Janaja was attended by PWs-1 & 2. But Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that two registered sale deeds bearing No. 1-7016 [Exbt.F] and No. 1-4910 [Exbt.G] have been placed in the evidence and on their basis, both the courts below inferred that on 17.12.1979 when the gift deed was executed, Ashad Ullah was alive. He has been candidly admitted that no forensic evidence has laid to show the imprints of the original owner as available in the registered deeds are not genuine. 12. However, Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has strongly raised objection against the said submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for that the appellants that one of the attesting witnesses has submitted that no such gift deed was executed on the date of as claimed. But that witness did not deny signature on the gift deed. According to him, the plaintiffs’ case is very definite. Ashad Ullah did not give the suit land in favour of the defendant inasmuch as Ashad Ullah died in the year 1973 whereas the gift deed has been executed in the year 1979. Both the courts below disbelieved the evidence that two registered deeds were executed by Ashad Ullah. Subsequently, the gift deed was executed. 13. Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that the concurrent finding of fact is not tainted by any perversity, inasmuch as those findings are structured on solid foundation. Even presumption as drawn suffers from no illegality. Apparently, the story as implanted by the plaintiffs has not been found believable by the fact-finding courts and as such, this court will not disturb the concurrent finding of fact as returned by the courts below. Even presumption as drawn suffers from no illegality. Apparently, the story as implanted by the plaintiffs has not been found believable by the fact-finding courts and as such, this court will not disturb the concurrent finding of fact as returned by the courts below. The substantial questions of law thus fall flat, and in the result, this appeal stands dismissed. 14. Draw the decree accordingly and thereafter, send down the LCRs.