JUDGMENT : PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. F.U. Borbhuya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Das the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is a regular second appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, against the judgment dated 04.08.2008, passed by the Civil Judge, Goalpara in Title Appeal No. 05/2008, arising out of the judgment dated 11.09.2007, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 83/2004. 3. This appeal was admitted for hearing upon the following 2 substantial question of law: 1. Whether the learned lower appellate Court is right and correct as per provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 in holding that the purchased land vide Ext.9 and the gift land vide Ext.10. Are different on the facts of existence of these two deeds and the specific description of the land in question in plaint? 2. Whether partial entry of the suit land made in the records of right is sufficient to confer valid title in favour of the respondents-defendants Regulation in view of rebuttal of the same by the appellant side/plaintiff? 4. The appellant file the Title Suit No. 83/2004, against the respondent praying for a decree declaring that the appellant No. 1 has right, title and interest over 3B, 2K and 10L of land and the appellant no. 2 has the right, title and interest over 1 bigha of land as described in the schedule of the plaint. The appellant further prayed for a decree for recovery of vacant possession of the suit land after evicting the respondents therefrom. 5. Both the plots of land comprise of a bigger plot of land measuring 4B-2K-10L. The aforesaid land is a part of 24B-7K-3L of Tauzi land, originally owned and possessed by Late Sanu Sheikh @ Sayenuddin Sheikh, the father of the respondents. 6. Late Sayenenuddin Sheikh executed a registered sale deed no. 659, dated 15.03.1954, in favour of Md. Mazam Ali, the father of the appellants in respect of the suit land. The possession of the land was also delivered to Md. Majam Ali. Since then, Late Majam Ali and after his death, the present appellants have been in possession of the suit land. In the records of rights necessary correction were also made. 7. Mazam Ali, the father of the appellants in respect of the suit land. The possession of the land was also delivered to Md. Majam Ali. Since then, Late Majam Ali and after his death, the present appellants have been in possession of the suit land. In the records of rights necessary correction were also made. 7. Out of the total land of 4B-2K-10L, Late Majam Ali gifted 3B-2K-10L of land belonging to the appellant no. 1 and the remaining 1bighs of land to appellant no. 2. The possession of land were also handed over to both the appellants. 8. The aforesaid 3B-2K-10L of land belonging to the appellant no. 1 was infact physically possessed by her husband Anowar Hussain. Similarly, the other 1 bigha of land owned by the second appellant was physically possessed by her husband Mobarak Ali. 9. The deceased respondent no. 1 late Ayenuddin Sheikh filed petition u/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned Executing Magistrate attached the entire 4B-2K-10L of the suit land. The other respondents also staked their claim over the suit land and also physically encroached upon the land. 10. This is the crux of the story, on the basis of which, the appellants filed the suit before the Court below. 11. The respondents jointly filed a written statement. They pleaded that the description of 4B-2K-10L of the land as given in the schedule of the plaint is partly true and partly false. They admitted that in the north of the land there is the land of Tota Mia. But they denied that after Tota Mia’s land there is the no land of Jasan Ali or Hazarat Ali etc. They further admitted that in the south there is the land of Abed Ali and Jasan Ali but beyond them, the lands do not belong to Samad and Soket Ali. The respondents admitted that in the eastern side, there is the land of Jasan Ali but beyond that there is no land of Samad and Soket. The respondents continued to admit that in the western side there is the land of Sayenuddin but beyond that there is no land of Asimuddin. 12. The respondents denied the fact that Late Majem Ali had gifted the land to his two daughters. The respondents claimed that the gift deed no. 1083, pertaining to the gift to the appellant no. 1 is a fraudulent document. 13. 12. The respondents denied the fact that Late Majem Ali had gifted the land to his two daughters. The respondents claimed that the gift deed no. 1083, pertaining to the gift to the appellant no. 1 is a fraudulent document. 13. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following six (6) issues: (1) Whether there is cause of action of the suit? (2) Whether the suit is barred bylaw of limitation? (3) Whether Majam Ali purchased 4B-2K-10L, land vide sale-deed No. 659, dated 15.03.1954, from Seynuddin “Sanu Seikh? (4) Whether the said Majem Ali gifted the suit land to the plaintiffs vide gift deed No. 1083, dated 12.09.1989? (5) Whether the land of sale-deed No. 659 dated 15-03-1954 and the land of gift deed land by virtue of Gift deed and entitled to khas possession over the suit land? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other reliefs as prayed for? 14. During the trial, the appellants examined seven witnesses. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit. 15. The respondents filed the appeal against the judgment, the first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trail Court. 16. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 17. There is an important fact associated with this case and it is that late Sanu Seikh @ Sayenuddin Seikh had executed a registered sale deed bearing no. 659, dated 15.03.1954, transferring the suit land to Md. Majam Ali, the father of the appellants. Interestingly, in paragraph 5 of the written statement, the respondents have admitted this fact. The respondents further admitted that on the north of the land, there is Tota Mia, in the south there is Abed Ali and Jasan Ali, in the east, there is Jasan Ali and in the west, there is Sayenuddin. So, the 4 boundaries of the suit land is also admitted. The respondents only pleaded that the gift deed executed in favour of the appellant No. 1 is a fraudulent document. 18. The appellant filed the suit seeking declaration of their right title and interests over the suit and also prayed for eviction of the respondents. 19. The respondents in paragraph 5 of their written statement admitted the right, title and interest of the appellants over the suit land. 18. The appellant filed the suit seeking declaration of their right title and interests over the suit and also prayed for eviction of the respondents. 19. The respondents in paragraph 5 of their written statement admitted the right, title and interest of the appellants over the suit land. It is a cardinal principal of evidence that admitted fact need not be proved. So far as the allegation that the gift deed executed in favour of the appellant no. 1 is fraudulent 1, it is the duty of the respondents to prove that allegation. It was not done by the respondents. In fact, once the respondents have admitted the right, title and interest of the appellant over the suit land, they have lost their locus-standi to challenge the authenticity of the gift deed. 20. Late Sanu Seikh Sayenuddin had sold the entire 4B-2K-10L of land to Md. Majam Ali. The four boundaries of this land is like this: In the north, there is Tota Mia and beyond that there are lands of Jasan Ali etc. in the south, there is Abed Ali and Jasan Ali and beyond them some to others, in the east, there is the land of Jasan Ali and beyond that there are some others and in the west, there is the land of Sayenuddin etc. 21. Out of the entire 4B-2K-10L of land, 3B-3K-10L of land was gifted to the appellant No. 1, by execution of the gift deed No. 1083, dated 12.09.1989 and the remaining 1bigha of land was gifted to the appellant no. 2. Naturally, the 4 boundaries of the entire 4B-2K-10L of land shall be different from four boundaries of 3B-2K-10L of land. The 4B-2K-10L of land is a single piece of land, gifted to two sisters and now, both the sisters joint together to file the suit showing 4B-2K-10L of land as the suit land. Therefore, the appellants have complied with the provision of law as laid down in Order 7 Rule III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Both the plots of land though stands together are easily identifiable. 22. It is a settled position of law that entry in the records of rights never confers any right over any land. For this issue, no elaborate discussion is necessary. 20. Both the substantial question of law are answered accordingly. 23. Both the plots of land though stands together are easily identifiable. 22. It is a settled position of law that entry in the records of rights never confers any right over any land. For this issue, no elaborate discussion is necessary. 20. Both the substantial question of law are answered accordingly. 23. Now, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trail Court has correctly appreciates the evidence, in view of the connected legal provision. The learned first appellate Court has erroneously oriented itself and set aside a reasoned judgment passed by the trail Court. Therefore the appeal is allowed. 24. The first appellate Court judgment dated 04.08.2008, passed by the Civil Judge, Goalpara in Title Appeal No. 05/2008 is set aside. The trial Court judgment dated 11.09.2007, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 83/2004 is affirmed. Send back the LCR.