Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant filed Title Suit No. 61 of 1978 against the defendants-respondents for eviction and realisation of arrears of rent, which was decreed. 2. The defendant first party against the said eviction decree preferred Title Appeal No. 12 of 1987, whereas the defendants second party preferred Title Appeal No. 8 of 1987. Both the appeals were heard together and were allowed by the impugned judgment dated 29.7.1991. 3. The trial Courts judgment and decree was set aside and the suit was remanded to the trial Court where the question of valuation would be gone into and if the valuation fixed by the Court was found to be beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the plaint would be returned and if not, the plaintiff would be asked by to pay ad-valorem Court fee. The evidence already led by the parties shall in that event, continue to be good evidence, but the parties would be permitted to lead further evidence on the question of title. The parties if so advised, might amend pleadings in accordance with law. The suit was directed to be disposed of afresh. 4. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this appeal under Section XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil procedure. 5. A perusal of the trial Courts judgment reveals that suit being purely for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), issue No. 4 : "Is there relationship of landlord between the plaintiff and the defendants" and issue No. 5 : "Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree for eviction and arrears of rent as claimed" were framed to be decided therein. However, since the defendant 1st party raised the question of his title and adduced evidence, the trial Court incidently had gone into the question of title and observed in paragraph 10 of its judgment: From the discussions made above, I find that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant 1st set since May, 1975. So far the question of defendants 2nd set is concerned, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants 2nd set is sub-tenant of the defendant 1st set, whereas the defendants claim to be the owner of the suit premises. So far the question of defendants 2nd set is concerned, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants 2nd set is sub-tenant of the defendant 1st set, whereas the defendants claim to be the owner of the suit premises. The story of defendant regarding ownership over the suit premises has already failed and there is no other plea of the defendants 2nd set so only thing remains now which is that the defendants 2nd set is sub-tenant of defendant 1st set. 6. The First appellate Court, however, found that held that the plaintiff, Gauri Shankar Prasad failed to prove relationship, of landlord between himself and Prakash Kumar Sinha. It, therefore, followed that the plaintiff failed to prove that Chandrika Prasad and others were sub-tenants of Prakash Kumar Sinha. 7. The learned District Judge, therefore, further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for eviction of the defendants from the suit house and for the arrears of rent under the Act. The trial Courts judgment and decree were accordingly, set aside. 8. Admittedly the suit was filed as between the landlord and tenants and Court fee was paid accordingly, but as a result of defence, the parties led evidence on the question of title to the suit property and the trial Court dealt with the question incidently at considerable length. However, there was no issue framed on the question of title in the suit and the trial Courts observation that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and the story of the defendants regarding ownership over it failed were given only for holding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, which finding was reversed by the first appellate Court. After reversing the finding of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties the first appellate Court did not go into the question of title, on the basis of evidence on record, for the reason that before going into the full fledged adjudication of title, payment of ad-valorem Court fee on the market value of the suit property determined by the Court was necessary. It was further found that admittedly Gaurj Shankar Prasad has got a sister and so he might not perhaps be entitled to claim exclusive title over the suit premises, In such circumstances, it was also observed that the parties may also amend their pleadings in accordance with law and may adduce further evidence on the question of title. 9. Here is not a case where there was already an issue framed on the question of title in the trial Court and/or there was concurrent finding that the plaintiff had title, although he failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant. Here the First appellate Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and reversed the trial Courts finding in this regard and held that the suit for eviction under the Act, therefore, failed. It was doubted whether ignoring the interest of his sister, the plaintiffs was entitled to claim his exclusive title over the suit premises so the first appellate Court after setting aside the trial Courts judgment and decree remanded the suit. 10. Now when case goes back to the trial Court, it would first determine the market value of the suit property. If valuation fixed by the trial Court was found to be beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaint would to be returned and, if not, then the plaintiff would be asked to pay ad-valorem Court fee As directed by the first appellate Court besides the evidence already on record, the parties would be permitted to lead further evidence on the question of title. The parties, if so advised may also amend pleadings in accordance with law. 11. In my view in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case ratio of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Raghubar Dayal Prasad V/s. Ramekbal Sah 1985 PLJR 891 is not applicable, rather ratio of the decision of this Court in Sheo Shankar Prasad and Ors. V/s. Barhan Mistry 1985 PLJR 358 is applicable. 12. I. therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of remand of the first appellate Court. 13. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs. Let the records be sent down forthwith.