JUDGMENT : (Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) : 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal. no. 17 of 2004 by learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah, present second appeal has been preferred. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 12th July, 2011, learned court below set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 5th Court Howrah dated 14.01.2004 in Title Suit. No.69 of 1995 and thereby also disposed of appellants application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 2. One Sambhu Charan Patra predecessor of substituted Appellants herein, as plaintiff filed aforesaid Title Suit. No. 69 of 1995 against defendant no.1 namely Kamala Rani Mukherjee, predecessor in interest of the present respondent no.1 with a prayer for declaration that said defendant no.1 has no manner of right title interest or possession in the suit property along with further declaration that the deed of sale executed by defendant no.3, Smt. Lalita Bala Mondal in favour of said defendant no.1 dated 19.07.1989 is void, in operative and not binding upon the plaintiff and also with prayer for injunction. Plaintiff’s case as made out in the plaint is that the mother of the plaintiff Smt. Durga Bala Dasi purchased 03 cottahs of land from one Jatan Chandra Adak on 29.03.1946 and later on, she sold the said plot no. 90 having municipal holding no. 45/1 Girish Ghosh lane to Smt. Sukriti Bala Dasi on 13.12.1965. Further case of the plaintiff is that said Durga Bala was also a Thika Tenant in respect of 03 cottahs of land which is situated just by the aforesaid property under plot no. 89, being holding no. 45 Girish Ghosh lane (in short GG Lane) and upon her death the plaintiff Sambhu Charan Patra became the owner thereof by way of inheritance and he is in possession of the same. Plaintiff further contended in the plaint that on 31.12.1965, by executing a deed of kobuliyat in favour of Smt. Sukriti Bala Dasi, the plaintiff took settlement of 1 ½ cottahs of land situated under holding no. Plaintiff further contended in the plaint that on 31.12.1965, by executing a deed of kobuliyat in favour of Smt. Sukriti Bala Dasi, the plaintiff took settlement of 1 ½ cottahs of land situated under holding no. 45 GG Lane and after amalgamation with the property left by his mother, the total quantum of land comes to more or less 4 ½ cottahs and plaintiff was in possession of the said land under superior land lord and after promulgamation of Thika Tenancy Act 1981 plaintiff became Thika tenant under the State. 3. While the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the said property, said defendant no.1 started claiming to be the owner of a part of the said property measuring 1 ½ cottahs of land including structure standing thereon, on the strength of deed of sale alleged to have been executed by defendant no. 3 Lalita bala Mondal in the year 1989. Plaintiff’s specific case is Lalita Bala had no right title interest or possession in the suit property at any point of time and since the property in question had already been vested in the State of West Bengal under the provision of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981, Said Lalita Bala had no right to transfer the said vested land in the year 1989 i.e. long after the promulgamation of said Act of 1981 by overriding the statutory provision of law. Accordingly plaintiff prayed for declaration of his ownership as well as for declaration that the deed is not binding upon him. 4. The defendant no.1 contested the suit by filing written statement contending that he is the absolute owner of said suit land with structure standing thereon measuring more or less 1 cottah 8 chitak comprised in holding no. 45/1 GG Lane, previously part of 45 GG Lane. The defendant no.1 became the absolute owner by virtue of said deed of sale dated 19th July, 1989 duly executed by Lalita Bala. Defendants specific case is that originally the said property within holding no. 45 GG Lane measuring 4 cottahs 6 chitakh and 6 sq.ft. land with structure standing thereon absolutely belonged to Sukriti Bala Dasi who was owner of the suit property as Mourashi tenant and was in possession of the same. Thereafter she executed a deed of settlement dated 02.11.1954 in favour of defendant no. 45 GG Lane measuring 4 cottahs 6 chitakh and 6 sq.ft. land with structure standing thereon absolutely belonged to Sukriti Bala Dasi who was owner of the suit property as Mourashi tenant and was in possession of the same. Thereafter she executed a deed of settlement dated 02.11.1954 in favour of defendant no. 3 Lalita Bala Mondal in respect of said property at 45 GG Lane and by virtue of such deed of settlement the vendor of defendant no.1 namely Lalita Bala became the owner of the said property. Further defence contention is said 4 cottah 6 chitakh 3 sq.ft. land with structure was allotted to Bijoy Pada Das as Thika Tenant and out of said premises a part of the property was sold to Jatan Chandra Adak and remaining portion was transferred to said Smt. Durga Bala Dasi, mother of the plaintiff who was seized and possessed of the said property. It is further contended by the defendant in her pleading that said Sukriti Bala filed a case being Case no. 11 of 1961 for eviction of the thika tenant Bijoy Pada Das and the said suit was ultimately decreed on compromise on 24.08.1965 and thereby Bijoy pada relinquished his possession in the said property in favour of Sukriti Bala Dasi. Similarly, Durga Bala Dasi also transferred her right title interest over the property which she acquired from Jatan, in favour of Sukriti Bala Dasi by a registered deed dated 13.12.1965 and accordingly Sukriti Bala became the owner of the property. 5. Thereafter, said Sukriti Bala again transferred 1 cottah 6 chitakh land to one Urmi Bala Dasi and 1 cottah 8 chitkah of land to the original plaintiff Sambhu Chandra Patra as thika tenant and Sukrti Bala retained remaining 1 cottah 8 chitakh of Mourusi Makrari Bastu land in her khas possession and after her death Lalita Bala i.e. defendant no. 3 who is also the vender of defendant no.1 became absolute owner to the estate left by Lalita Bala at the time of her death. Laltia Bala thereafter transferred said 1 cottah 8 chitakh land to defendant no.1 by way of lease for a period of 9 years on 28.06.1978 and on the expiry of aforesaid period of lease, she transferred the said property in favour of defendant no.1 by a deed of sale dated 19.07.1989, which is under challenge in the present suit. Laltia Bala thereafter transferred said 1 cottah 8 chitakh land to defendant no.1 by way of lease for a period of 9 years on 28.06.1978 and on the expiry of aforesaid period of lease, she transferred the said property in favour of defendant no.1 by a deed of sale dated 19.07.1989, which is under challenge in the present suit. Defendant no.2 Howrah Municipal Corporation contested the suit by filing written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. However defendant no. 3 Laltia Bala did not contest the said suit. 6. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties came to a finding that Lalita Bala was not the daughter of Sukriti Bala and from exhibit A and also from the evidence of DW-1, it clearly reveals that Lalita Bala was the foster daughter of Sukriti and Hindu law does not recognize a foster child as legal heir of a Hindu female and as such after the death of Sukriti Bala Lalita cannot inherit any property of Sukriti Bala and he further observed that though the defendant stated about a deed of settlement dated 02.11.1954 executed by Sukriti Bala in favour of Lalita Bala but no such deed was filed in the court in order to understand the contents or terms and conditions of the deed and as such Lalita Bala had no right to execute any deed in favour of defendant no.1 and as such Trial Court decreed the suit against defendant no. 1 and 2 on contest and exparte against defendant no. 3 and defendant no.4 and also granted injunction in favour of plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved by that order First Appeal was preferred before the court below. During pendency of first appeal the certified copy of aforesaid deed of settlement executed by Sukriti Bala in favour of Lalita Bala dated 02.11.1954 was filed and was prayed before the court for marking the said document as exhibit for taking cognizance upon the said deed under the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During pendency of first appeal the certified copy of aforesaid deed of settlement executed by Sukriti Bala in favour of Lalita Bala dated 02.11.1954 was filed and was prayed before the court for marking the said document as exhibit for taking cognizance upon the said deed under the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Court below while disposed of the appeal also disposed of said application of the Appellant filed under Order XLI Rule 27 and relying upon a judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 3685 marked the said document as exhibit 1(a) and observed with regard to admissibility of deed dated 19.07.1989 in favour of defendant no.1, that the vendor of said deed namely Lalita Bala acquired right title interest over the property from the deed dated 02.11.1954 and as such said deed is to be taken into consideration for proper adjudication of the Appeal, thereby the court below came to a finding that by the aforesaid transfer dated 02.11.1954, Lalita Bala acquired superior interest as at that time there also existed thika tenancy interest over the property. Since Sukriti Bala Dasi kept her life interest in the suit property by virtue of aforesaid settlement deed and during her lifetime she also acquired the interest of thika tenancy by lawful means, naturally the superior interest and the thika tenancy interest got merged with each other resulting in the absolute Mokrari Mourusi interest in the suit property after the death of Sukriti Bala and as such the deed executed by Lalita Bal in favour of defendant no.1 is a valid deed and as such the appeal was allowed and thereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court granting decree in favour of plaintiff has been set aside. 8. Mr. Routh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the court below erroneously came to a conclusion upon holding that the superior interest and the thika interest got merged with each other resulting in the absolute Mokrari Mourusi interest in the suit property without taking into consideration, the relevant materials on record in its true and proper perspective. Mr. Routh strenuously argued that the mother of the plaintiff namely Durga Bala was a thika tenant in respect of 3 cottahs of land appertaining to holding no. Mr. Routh strenuously argued that the mother of the plaintiff namely Durga Bala was a thika tenant in respect of 3 cottahs of land appertaining to holding no. 45 GG lane under plot no.89 and plaintiff inherited the same upon his mother’s death, which the defendant had not properly dealt with in the written statement and has made evasive denial. On the contrary defendant no.1 in para 28 of the written statement admitted that the suit property appertaining to holding no.45 under plot no.89 is a thika property under possession of Smt. Durga Bala and Jatan Chandra Adak. The court below did not consider that DW1 in his cross examination admitted that her vendor Lalita Bala is not the daughter of Sukriti Bala and had not given any property from holding no.45 to Lalita Bala and he further admitted that holding no.45 was a thika property and Sukriti Bala was the Zamindar of that holding. 9. Mr. Routh in this context vemiently argued that Lalita Bala has been arrayed by the plaintiff as defendant no.3 in the suit and accordingly she is the best person to disclose whether she had lawful right and/or locus standi to transfer any portion of land appertaining to holding no. 45 under dag no.89 by executing any deed. But despite proper service of summon, she did not face the dock nor filed any written statement or adduced evidence in support of the case made out by defendant no.1. In the instant suit, Officials of the Howrah Municipal Corporation deposed as PW-2 who stated that from the demand register being exhibit 4(A), it is clear that holding noo.45 GG lane was a thika property and the name of Sukriti Bala has been mentioned therein as owner and the name of Durga Bala and Bijoy Pada have been shown as occupier and it further shows that holding no.45 GG lane is comprising of 4 cottahs 6 chitakh and 3 sq.ft. of land. Accordingly Mr. Routh contended that since suit property is a thika property said Lalita Bala had no authority to transfer any portion thereof by executing deed of sale dated 19.07.1989 long after promulgation of the Thika Tenancy Act 1981, which imposed restriction under section 6 (3) of the Act about transferring any portion of thika land. of land. Accordingly Mr. Routh contended that since suit property is a thika property said Lalita Bala had no authority to transfer any portion thereof by executing deed of sale dated 19.07.1989 long after promulgation of the Thika Tenancy Act 1981, which imposed restriction under section 6 (3) of the Act about transferring any portion of thika land. He further submits that the court below has marked the deed dated 02.11.1954 as exhibit 1(a) though it was filed at the instance of defendant no.1. Moreover, plaintiff/respondent in the court below filed written objection to the said application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C challenging the maintainability of said application on the ground that Sukriti Bala had no daughter namely Lalita Bala and she never executed any such deed and the defendant no.1 isnpite of getting sufficient opportunity, did not file the deed nor explained what prevented her to produce the same at an earlier stage and as such the document is highly suspicious and ought not to have accepted by the Appellate Court. He also argued that the plaintiff /respondent in the court below was not allowed to adduce rebuttle evidence under the provision of Order XLI Rule 28 and 29 of the Code and inspite of that court below admitted said purported document in evidence. He further argued that the purported deed of settlement clearly demonstrates that the disposition was not a disposition in presentee i.e. the document did not take effect on the date on which it was created but the settler creates her right thereunder to take effect after her demise. Accordingly the mode of disposition as made in the document makes it clear that the said document even if taken to have existed is nothing but a testamentary disposition as during the lifetime of the settler no right title interest in respect of any property as mentioned therein was vested to the settlee i.e. upon said Lalita Bala. Accordingly Mr. Routh prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. In support of appellants contention he placed reliance upon following judgments. (i) Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board Vs. H. Narayanaiah and Others reported in AIR 1976 SC 2403 (ii) H.S. Goutham Vs. Rama Murthy and another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 241 . (iii) J. Balaji Singh Vs. Diwakar Cole and others reported in (2017) 14 SCC 207 (iv) J.Yashoda Vs. (i) Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board Vs. H. Narayanaiah and Others reported in AIR 1976 SC 2403 (ii) H.S. Goutham Vs. Rama Murthy and another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 241 . (iii) J. Balaji Singh Vs. Diwakar Cole and others reported in (2017) 14 SCC 207 (iv) J.Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani reported in (2007) 5 SCC 730 (v) H. Siddiqui Vs. A Ramlingam reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240 (vi) Mathai Samuel and others Vs. Eapen Eapen (Dead) by LRS. And others reported in (2012) 13 SCC 80 (vii) Indrajit Kr. Shaw Vs. Ajit Kumar Shaw S.A 128 of 2022 (Judgement dated 18.12.2023) 10. Mr. Manobendra Saha Roy learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant No.1/respondents submitted that the learned first appellate Court correctly reversed the decree of the learned Trial Court after meeting all the reasoning given by the learned Trial Judge. He further contended that in the written statement defendant no.1 has specifically stated in para 28 about the execution of deed of settlement by Sukriti Bala in favour of Lalita Bala wherein Sukriti Bala is the settler, making said Lalita Bala as the ultimate beneficiary, but the said deed of settlement could not be produced at the time of trial and subsequently the defendant no.1 obtained the certified copy of the said deed of settlement and he filed it along with application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code and the court below rightly disposed of the same in favour of Respondent herein allowing the same. Relying upon Apex Court judgment, he further submits that the court below after considering entire pleadings of the parties came to a conclusion that the admissibility of the deed is very much required to enable the court to pronounce the judgment since the core issue involved in the suit is whether the deed dated 19.07.1989 executed by Lalita Bala in favour of defendant no. 1 is a valid deed or not. Accordingly there is no scope for interference of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and as such this second appeal is liable to be dismissed. Decision 11. The division Bench of this court while admitted the appeal vide its order dated 27th April 2012 has been pleased to held that the appeal will be heard on the following substantial questions of law. Decision 11. The division Bench of this court while admitted the appeal vide its order dated 27th April 2012 has been pleased to held that the appeal will be heard on the following substantial questions of law. (i) Whether the learned judge in the lower appellate court, substantially, erred in law in reversing the decree of the trial court without meeting all the reasonings given by the learned Trial Judge? (ii) Whether the learned judge in the lower appellate court, substantially, erred in law in allowing the prayer for reception of additional evidence without affording an opportunity to the plaintiffs for giving evidence in rebuttal in terms of the provisions of rules 28 and 29 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure? (iii) Whether the learned judge in the lower appellate court, substantially, erred in law in deciding the question of thika tenancy without referring the matter before the thika controller? 12. It is trite law that High Court has jurisdiction to decide the second appeal only on the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admitting the appeal or in other words the jurisdiction of High Court to decide second appeal is confined only to aforesaid three questions of law as framed by the Division Bench and not beyond it. 1. “Whether the learned judge in the lower appellate court, substantially, erred in law in reversing the decree of the trial court without meeting all the reasonings given by the learned trial judge?” 13. Defendants contention all along is that defendant no. 1 became absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a deed of sale dated 19.07.1989 executed by Lalita Bala. It is his further contention that said property within holding no. 45 GG Lane measuring 4 cottahs 6 chitakh and 3 sq.ft. of bastu land along with structure standing thereon, absolutely belonged to Sukriti Bala, who was 16 annnas owner of the said property as Mourusi Tenant and while she was in possession of the same, she executed deed of settlement on 2nd November, 1954 in favour of Lalita Bala, retaining her life interest in the property. Thereafter said 4 cottahs 6 chitak 3 sq.ft. land with structure was allotted to Bijoy Pada and out of said premises a part of the property was sold to Jatan Chandra Adak and remaining part was sold to Smt. Durga Bala. Thereafter said 4 cottahs 6 chitak 3 sq.ft. land with structure was allotted to Bijoy Pada and out of said premises a part of the property was sold to Jatan Chandra Adak and remaining part was sold to Smt. Durga Bala. Defendant no.1 further pleaded that Sukriti Bala thereafter initiated eviction proceeding against Bijoy Pada who thereafter relinquished his possession in the property in favour of Sukriti Bala and similarly Durga Bala also transferred her right, title, interest which she acquired from Jatan Adak, in favour of sukriti bala by a deed dated 13.12.1965. Further case of defendant is Sukriti Bala again transferred 1 cottah 6 chitakh of land to Urmi Bala and 1 cottah 8 chitkh to original plaintiff Shambhu as thika tenant and remaining 1 cottah 8 chitakh she retained in her khas possession as Mourusi Makrari land and after the death of Sukriti, Lalita Bala became absolute owner in terms of aforesaid deed for the year 1954 and she at first leased it out for 9 years in favour of defendant no.1 and after expiry of lease period the defendant no.1 became premises tenant and on 19.07.1989 Lalita sold it to defendant no.1. It is her further case that the right of Lalita Bala was not a thika tenancy right and thereby section 6 (3) of the Act of 1981 did not create any bar to Lalita Bala to transfer the same in favour of defendant no.1. On the contrary plaintiffs contention is that said property was in possession of her mother being a thika tenant and after her death, she became thika tenant under the superior land lord and thereafter with the introduction of Act of 1981, plaintiff became direct tenant under the State and Lalita Bala, being the foster daughter of Sukriti Bala never acquired any right, title, interest in the suit property. 14. During evidence the deed of aforesaid purchase by Durga Bala on 29.03.1946 from Jatan Chandra Adak being 45/1 GG lane is marked as exhibit 1 and the sale of Durga Bala in respect of said 3 cottahs of land in favour of Sukriti Bala in the year 1965 is marked as exhibit F. In exhibit F it has also been disclosed that sukriti bala filed one eviction suit against Bijoy Pada being Misc. Case no. 11 of 1961 and the said Misc. Case no. 11 of 1961 and the said Misc. Case was disposed of on compromise and in terms of said compromise Bijoy Pada relinquished his right in favour of Sukriti Bala. Exhibit 2 reveals that Jatan Adak was a thika tenant of holding no.45 GG lane and Durga bala was ‘Ghar Bharatia’ under him. Exhibit 2 further states that Durga Bala and Bijay Pada were occupiers in respect of 2 cottahs 14 chitakh and 3 sq.ft. of holding no.45 G.G Lane. Exhibit 5 shows that Sambhu Charan Patra the original plaintiff took thika tenancy of 1 cottahs 8 chitakh land in holding no. 45 GG Lane from Sukriti Bala Dasi by executing kobuliyat. Exhibit B shows that Lalita Bala being the foster daughter of Sukriti Bala executed a deed of lease in favour of defendant no.1 in the year 1978 for a period of 9 years wherefrom relinquishment of right of Bijoy Pada Das is also found. Subsequently by way of exhibit A defendant no. 1 purchased suit property from Lalita Bala. Furthermore exhibit A i.e. deed of defendant no. 1 clearly states that Lalita Bala got the property not by way of inheritance but by way of deed dated 02.11.1954 executed by Sukriti Bala. Exhibit 1(a) is the said deed of settlement dated on 02.11.1954. 15. Accordingly the interest transferred by Sukriti Bala in favour of Lalita Bala is the superior interest as at that point of time the interest of Thika Tenancy was existing in the suit property and Sukriti Bala retained her life interest in the suit property and thereby she also acquired the interest of Thika Tenancy and thereafter the superior interest and thika tenancy interest have been merged with each other resulting in the absolute Mockery Mourusi interest in the suit property and as such the question of transferring thika property by Lalita Bala in favour of defendant no.1 does not hold good. 16. It is well settled that it is not open to the High Court to interfere with the finding of fact which is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, as has been quoted above and such finding of fact on proper appreciation of evidence by the court below, could not have interfered with by the High Court under section 100 CPC. In a second appeal High Court cannot substitutes its own opinion unless finding of the court below and the conclusion drawn by the court below are erroneous being contrary to the provision of law or based on inadmissible evidence. High Court can interfere in the second appeal if the materials or relevant evidence is not considered by the court below and if considered would have lead to an opposite conclusion or if the findings has been arrived at by the court below by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence, which if omitted an opposite conclusion was possible. But in the present context no such situation has arisen rather the court below has correctly relied upon the deed of 1954 and thereby reached a correct finding that Lalita Bala acquired mockery mourusi right in respect of suit property and thereby she had transferred the same in favour of defendant no.1. 17. Therefore in view of materials available in record I do not find that the court below has committed any mistake in reversing the decree of trial court, who decreed the suit as defendant no.1 could not prove the deed for 1954 before the trial court and came to a finding that being foster daughter Lalita Bala did not inherit suit property with the death of Sukriti Bala. 2. “Whether the learned judge in the lower appellate court, substantially, erred in law in allowing the prayer for reception of additional evidence without affording an opportunity to the plaintiffs for giving evidence in rebuttal in terms of the provisions of rules 28 and 29 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure?” 18. While admitting the deed for the year 1954 in evidence the court below relying upon judgment of the Apex Court came to a finding that the basis of the suit is the deed of the year 1954 and justice demand that the plaintiff should have allowed opportunity to lead additional evidence to prove its validity. It further appears that the defendant/appellant before the court below had not made out the case about deed of settlement of 1954 for the first time before the first appellate court. On the contrary he specifically pleaded in para 18 of written statement that Lalita Bala acquired her right title interest by dint of deed for the year 1954. It further appears that the defendant/appellant before the court below had not made out the case about deed of settlement of 1954 for the first time before the first appellate court. On the contrary he specifically pleaded in para 18 of written statement that Lalita Bala acquired her right title interest by dint of deed for the year 1954. However for some reasons or other defendant no.1 could not file and prove said deed before the court below and in absence of the said deed, the Trial Court had no other option but to allow plaintiff’s prayer. 19. It is not in dispute that the deed for the year 1954 has not been declared as null and void by any court of law. Accordingly the question of causing prejudice to the defendant for not getting opportunity to adduce rebuttable evidence in respect of said deed dated 1954 has got no substance. 20. It is well settled that additional evidence shall be allowed if it is required for the appellate court for pronouncing judgment in other words impossibility to pronounce judgment without the additional evidence. In the present case I have no doubt in my mind that without admitting the deed dated 1954 in evidence, pronouncement of judgment by the court below was not possible. Moreover, when the document sought to be produced is a public document touching merit of the case, the appellate court is bound to allow the application under Order XLI Rule 27. The words “for any other substantial cause” appearing in rule 27 should be construed liberally and it confers very wide discretion on the appellate court to admit additional evidence when the ends of justice requires admission of such evidence. In the case is hand the defendant filed and proved certified copy of the deed for the year 1954 which is the deed in favour of Lalita Bala and is not supposed to be in the custody of the plaintiff. 21. Moreover it is not the law that a certified copy of a registered sale deed is inadmissible in evidence unless parties to the document are examined to prove it. Because it would be contrary to what section 77 read with section 74(2) and 76 of the Evidence Act 1872 and more specifically section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Moreover it is not the law that a certified copy of a registered sale deed is inadmissible in evidence unless parties to the document are examined to prove it. Because it would be contrary to what section 77 read with section 74(2) and 76 of the Evidence Act 1872 and more specifically section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is open to the court to accept the certified copy as reliable evidence, without examining parties to the documents. Since the certified copy obtained from a Registrar’s office is admissible under section 57(5) of the Registration Act for the purpose of proving the contents of the original documents, the mere production of such certified copy without any further oral evidence to support it, could be enough to show what the original document contained. 22. In view of the above the second substantial question of law is answered with the observation that the court below has not committed any mistake in allowing the prayer for admitting the certified copy of the deed for the year 1954 in evidence, without calling any witness and as a consequence the question of not affording the plaintiff/respondent about rebuttle of the evidence does not arise. 3. “Whether the learned judge in the lower appellate court, substantially, erred in law in deciding the question of thika tenancy without referring the matter before the thika controller?” 23. Plaintiff in the plaint has prayed for declaration that the defendant no.1 has no right title possession in the property and the deed executed by Lalita Bala in favour of defendant no.1 dated 19.07.1989 is void and to pass order of injunction to that effect. In such view of the matter the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court had no reason to refer such issue before Thika Tenancy Tribunal for adjudication. In fact the core issue involved in the suit is whether Lalita Bala had any right title interest or in other words saleable interest in the suit property or not and whether the deed executed by Lalita Bala in favour of defendant no.1 is valid deed or not, which the civil court alone is competent to adjudicate. 24. In fact the core issue involved in the suit is whether Lalita Bala had any right title interest or in other words saleable interest in the suit property or not and whether the deed executed by Lalita Bala in favour of defendant no.1 is valid deed or not, which the civil court alone is competent to adjudicate. 24. In view of aforesaid discussion I have no other option but to conclude that the court below has not committed any mistake in setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court and thereby dismissing the suit by the impugned judgment and as such decree passed by the court below does not call for interference in view of aforesaid discussion. 25. SA 146 of 2012 stands dismissed. 26. The judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah in Title Appeal. No. 17 of 2004 is hereby affirmed. In view of disposal of main Appeal connected applications are also disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, on priority basis on compliance of all usual formalities.