JUDGMENT : (Devashis Baruah, J.) Heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This is an Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2024 in Title Appeal No.18/2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhubri whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Bilasipara dated 07.10.2023 in Title Suit No.114/2015 was affirmed. 3. The instant case has been taken up at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code to ascertain as to whether there arises any substantial questions of law in terms with Section 100 (4) of the Code that can be formulated in the instant proceedings. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has proposed in the Memo of Appeal certain substantial questions of law. To ascertain as to whether those substantial questions of law can at all be formulated in the instant Appeal, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts leading to filing of the instant case. 5. The respondents herein as plaintiffs had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.114/2015 against the appellant along with another Sri Uttam Paul Choudhury seeking declaration of their right, title and interest along with recovery of khas possession and permanent injunction. The facts pleaded in the plaint are that one Santiram Paul Choudhury was the original owner of the land described in the Schedule to the plaint which admeasures 4 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas. After the death of said Santiram Paul Choudhury, his wife and his son, i.e. one Renubala Choudhury and one Ratan Kumar Paul inherited the land described in the Schedule and their names were jointly recorded in the record of right. Subsequently, the said Renubala Choudhury expired leaving behind Ratan Kumar Paul as the sole legal heir. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Late Ratan Kumar Paul and the plaintiff No.2 is the son of Late Ratan Kumar Paul. The proforma defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the daughters of Late Ratan Kumar Paul. It has been alleged in the plaint that taking the advantage that the plaintiff No.1 was a widow and the plaintiff No.2 was the minor, the defendants trespassed into the Schedule land in the month of January, 2013. The proforma defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the daughters of Late Ratan Kumar Paul. It has been alleged in the plaint that taking the advantage that the plaintiff No.1 was a widow and the plaintiff No.2 was the minor, the defendants trespassed into the Schedule land in the month of January, 2013. Under such circumstances, the suit was filed seeking declaration that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the Schedule land; for recovery of khas possession over the Schedule land by evicting the defendants therefrom and demolishing any structures raised by them; for permanent injunction and for any other relief. 6. Upon filing of the suit, the defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement. In the said written statement, the defendant put various pleas as regards the maintainability of the suit. In the said written statement, the defendant categorically stated that the suit land is in the name of the defendant and he has been possessing and cultivating on their own after the death of the uncle of the defendant No.1. At paragraph No.12 of the written statement, it has been stated that the plaintiffs had not inherited and possessed the suit land after the death of the land owner Late Santiram Paul Choudhury and the said Late Santiram Paul Choudhury had given the suit land to the defendant Nos.1 & 2 during their life time and from that time, the defendant Nos.1 & 2, specially the defendant No.1 has been possessing the suit land with the consent of the defendant No.2 of the plaint. In paragraph No.13, it was stated that Ratan Kumar Paul was the nephew/niece of the deceased Renubala Choudhury. In addition to that, it has also been stated that the defendants have been in possession of the suit land for 47 years and the suit so filed is misconceived. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as 7 Issues were framed by the learned Trial Court which are reproduced herein under:- (1) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (3) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (4) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? (5) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for? (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (3) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (4) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? (5) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for? (7) To what other relief(s) the parties are entitled? 8. Upon framing of the Issues, the plaintiffs adduced the evidence of 4 witnesses including one official witness. In addition to that, the plaintiffs had exhibited various documents. The defendants side had adduced the evidence of 7 witnesses including two official witnesses and exhibited 7 documents. The learned Trial Court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and thereby decreed the suit. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred an Appeal being Title Appeal No.18/2023 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhubri. The learned First Appellate Court after framing the Points for Determination, dismissed the Appeal vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.05.2024 and it is under such circumstances, the instant Appeal has been filed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant who submitted that the substantial questions of law as proposed in the Memo of Appeal are involved in the instant Appeal. 11. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now analyze as to whether the substantial questions of law which have been proposed are at all involved in the instant Appeal. 12. The first substantial question of law proposed is as to whether the plaintiffs have been able to prove their right, title and interest over the disputed plot of land as per the settled provisions of law. This Court has duly perused the judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court. In the judgment of the learned Trial Court while deciding the Issue No.5, the learned Trial Court had duly taken note of the evidence of both the parties and had come to a finding that the plaintiffs have been able to prove their right, title and interest over the Schedule land. In the judgment of the learned Trial Court while deciding the Issue No.5, the learned Trial Court had duly taken note of the evidence of both the parties and had come to a finding that the plaintiffs have been able to prove their right, title and interest over the Schedule land. The learned First Appellate Court also while deciding the 5th Point for Determination had also duly taken note of the evidence of both the parties and had affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that there is any perversity in the findings so arrived at. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the first substantial question of law so proposed is not involved in the instant Appeal. 13. The second substantial question of law so proposed is as to whether the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court was justified for not considering the specific allegation/vital question stated in the written statement against the husband of the plaintiff No.1 that he is not the son of actual land owner Renubala Paul Choudhury. The said substantial question of law, in the opinion of this Court, does not arise in as much as while cross-examining the DW1 who is the defendant No.1, he had duly admitted that Late Ratan Kumar Paul was the son of Late Santiram Paul Choudhury. This aspect of the matter was duly taken into consideration by the learned Courts below. Under such circumstances, the second substantial question of law so proposed does not arise in the instant Appeal. 14. The third substantial question of law which has been proposed is as to whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in not considering the Sale Deeds, i.e. Exhibit C & D submitted by the Appellant before the learned Trial Court while affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No.114/2015. 15. This Court while considering the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant enquired with as to the relevance of the said Sale Deeds which have been exhibited as Exhibit Nos. C & D and as to whether the said exhibits would show that any right has been conferred upon the defendants. 15. This Court while considering the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant enquired with as to the relevance of the said Sale Deeds which have been exhibited as Exhibit Nos. C & D and as to whether the said exhibits would show that any right has been conferred upon the defendants. The learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that the two Sale Deeds would have shown that the suit land was purchased by the wife of Late Santiram Paul Choudhury who was Renubala Paul Choudhury. It has been duly admitted and proved that Late Ratan Kumar Paul was the son of Late Santiram Paul Choudhury and Late Renubala Paul Choudhury. 16. It is the opinion of this Court that the said Sale Deeds cannot be said to have been affected the decision passed by both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court. Moreover, this Court duly takes note of that both the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court have duly taken note of Exhibit Nos.C & D as would be apparent from their judgments. 17. The fourth substantial question of law so proposed was as to whether the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court was justified holding the fact that the suit land originally belonged to Late Santiram Paul Choudhury without any documentary evidence. 18. It is very relevant to take note of that in paragraph No.12 of the written statement filed by the defendant/appellant herein he had duly admitted that Late Santiram Paul Choudhury was the owner of the suit land. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the same cannot be considered to be a substantial question of law involved in the instant Appeal. 19. It is further relevant to take note of that no further substantial question of law was proposed. 20. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no merits in the instant Appeal for which the Appeal stands dismissed. However, taking into account the facts involved in the instant Appeal, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs.