AD -9 Ct No.16 10.12.2025 (SSS) SAT 196 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025 Sanarul Sk. Vs. Suman Islam and Ors. Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal, Mr. Samrat Chakraborty, Advs. ….For the Appellant. 1. The certified copies of the judgment and decree of the trial court filed today be kept on record. Accordingly, the defect in that regard is deemed to stand cured. 2. The appeal is taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The file shall be sent down to the trial court for effecting necessary corrections to the impugned decree of the appellate court in terms of the Additional Stamp Reporter’s report at the earliest. 3. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that a hebanama executed in favour of the defendants/respondents was void, being vitiated by false personification of the donor, and consequential reliefs. 4. Both the courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaint case had not been proved. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants submits that both the courts below failed to consider the consequences of a deed of gift by way of hebanama having not been accepted during the lifetime of the donor. It is submitted that both the courts proceeded primarily on the premise that the deed of gift in favour of the defendants/respondents was registered, without considering the other relevant considerations in case of a hebanama. 6. Learned counsel next submits that the learned Trial Judge erroneously dismissed the application of the plaintiffs/appellants for appointment of a handwriting expert to examine the authenticity of the Left Thumb Impression (LTI) of the alleged donor Nur Md. Sk. on the impugned heba executed in the year 2001 in favour of the defendant/respondents. It is argued that under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if no challenge was preferred at the interlocutory stage, interlocutory orders passed in a suit may be challenged, on the ground of error or illegality/irregularity, in the appeal preferred against the final decree passed in the suit, if such 2 orders have a vital bearing on the outcome of the suit. 7. However, we are unable to accept the contentions of the appellants for the following reasons. 8. The courts below came to concurrent findings that the plaintiffs/appellants have failed to prove their case of false personification of the donor Nur Md. Sk. at the time of execution of the impugned hebanama in the year 2001 in favour of the defendants/respondents. 9. The same being a concurrent finding of fact and a matter of evidence, there is no scope of re- appreciation of such evidence by the second appellate court. 10. Secondly, the challenge sought to be thrown against the order, whereby the application of the plaintiffs/appellants for appointment of handwriting expert was rejected, cannot also be entertained for the simple reason that it is explicit from the judgment of the courts below that the document of 1999, the signature on which was sought to be compared by the handwriting expert with the impugned deed, was not an admitted document. 11. The signature on the said document was also not independently proved by the plaintiffs/appellants by any witness. 3 12. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or illegality and/or irregularity or error in the order of the learned Trial Court dismissing the application for appointment of handwriting expert. 13. Although the registration of the hebanama in favour of the defendants/appellants was subsequent to the registration of the purported hebanama executed in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants, since the plaintiffs’ hebanama was executed much later than the defendants’ hebanama by the donor, by operation of Section 47 of the Registration Act, the relevant date for consideration as to which deed prevails relates back to the date of execution of the deed, upon registration being completed. Thus, even if a deed is executed earlier but registered later, the earlier executed deed would prevail over a deed which is executed later but registered earlier. Going by such premise as well, the plaintiffs have failed to make out any case to dislodge the hebanama in favour of the defendants/respondents which has been impugned in the suit. 14. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the orders of the courts below. That apart, in view of the concurrent findings of both the courts to the effect that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case of false personification in 4 respect of the impugned deed, there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 15. Accordingly, SAT 196 of 2025 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2025 also stands dismissed. 16. There will be no order as to costs. 17. Parties shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this court. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) 5