These two appeals are between the same parties and relate to the same matter raising same controversy between the parties, hence both the appeals are being decided together by a common judgment. 2. Second Appeal No. 10 of 1995 arises from Title Suit No. l3 of 1990. This suit was filed by the appellant. It was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.92 passed by Shri S K Saharia, Munsiff, Bongaigaon. Appellant filed appeal against me said judgment and decree of the Munsiff being Title Appeal No. 37 of 1993. The learned District Judge, Bongaigaon vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.94 dismissed the appeal. Thus giving rise to Appeal No.10 of 1995. 3. Second Appeal 9 of 1995 arises from Title Suit No.9 of 1993. This suit was filed by the respondent, Smti Bharati Narzary. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsiff Bongaigaon vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.92. Appellant filed appeal against the said decree-being Title Appeal No. 31 o£ 1993. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.94 dismissed the appeal. Thus giving arise to Appeal No. 10 of 1995. 4. In the two suits, one filed by the appellant and the other filed by the respondent, factual and legal controversy and the land which was subject matter were identical. Hence both the suits and the appeals filed in relation thereto were treated analogous matters and were decided together both by the Munsiff and the District Judge by common judgment and decree. It is for this reason that the above two second appeals are also being disposed of by me by a common judgment. In Title Suit No. 13 of 1990, the appellant herein claimed for a decree of declaration of his rights, title and interest of ownership and khas possession over an area of 2 kathas and 10 lechas of land in Dag No.l70 of final Khatian No.29 Patta No.27 and Patta No.279 on the basis that the said and was purchased by him from its owner Shri Sarat Chandra Choudhwy vide registered sale deed dated 4.5.1983 (being Sale Deed No, 393 (Ext. Ka). Ka). In the suit apart from others who were formal defendants, respondents was impleaded as defendant No. l. The respondent filed Title Suit No. 9 of 1993 praying for the issuance of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant and his men from damaging his property is from causing; interference in his possession inter alia on the basis that he was the owner and in possession of the lands in the said Dag No. measuring 1 katha 5 leehas which was purchased by Mr under registered sale deed from Ramoni Mohan Choudhary (one of the son of Sarat Chandra Chaoudhary). According to the respondent, after purchasing the land from Chandra Choudhury). According to the respondent, after purchasing the land from Ramoni Mohan Choudhury she took possession of the suit land the same day and constructed thereon one roofed GCI sheet cottage (Ek-chalia house) a and kept her chowkidar in the said Ek-chalia house for construction of dwelling house there. She then took up construction one 'L' type Assam Pattern house but when the construction was halfway the appellant on 26.3.90 caused objection in it and asked her to stop the construction work. Hence, the suit. 5. Appellant contested respondents suit. He filed written statement. In the written statement apart from routine pleadings he asserted that he had purchased 2 kathas 10 lechas of land from Sarat Chandra Choudhury, father of Ramoni Mohan Choudhury and original owner of the land on 4.5.83 vide Ext Ka. That Ramoni Mohan Choudhury had been left with no saleable interest in the land in suit (which is subject matter of the suit) and part of the land purchased by him from Sarat Chandra Choudhury vide Ext Ka. He further contended in his written c statement that Ramoni Mohan Choudhury and his other brothers namely, Lok Nath Choudhury, Gauri Kanta Choudhury, Ashani Kumar Choudhury and Ranuswar Choudhury have jointly sold a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 0 katha and 3 lechas from Dag No. 170 of final Khatian No.29 Patta No.278 and the land purchased by him and the suit land formed part of the same khatian, patta and dag numbers. 6. 6. It would appears from above narration of facts that both the parties claimed title over the land in suit (1 katha 5 lechas in Dag No. 170) on the basis respectively of Sale Deed No. 1393 executed by Shri Sarat Chandra Choudhury in favour of the appellant and sale deed dated 16.3.90 executed by his son Ramoni Mohan Choudhury in favour of respondent. The subsequent sale deed in favour of respondent was tendered in evidence as Ext 1 in Title Suit No. 13 of 1990). 7. In view of the rival claims of the title set up by both the parties on the basis of different sale deeds executed both in favour of appellant and respondent, main question which fell for consideration by the Court below in the two suits was whether the appellant or the respondent acquired title over the land in suit. 8. On the examination of evidence adduced by the parties in the two suits the trial Court was of the view that the appellant had failed to prove that he took possession of the land consequent upon the execution of Sale Deed No. 1393 in his favour by Sarat Chandra Choudhury. It was, thus, concluded by the trial Court that the appellant failed to demonstrate by evidence that the sale deed from which he claimed title in his favour over the suit land was at all acted upon by him either by taking possession of that land which was subject matter of the sale deed or by filing application for mutation of his name in the revenue records. On other hand, the trial Court found that the respondent was put in possession of the suit land which was covered by sale deed dated 16.3.96 executed in her favour by Ramoni Mohan Choudhury. It was also found by the trial Court that consequent upon execution of the sale deed and its registration by the Sub-Registrar, the respondent acquired possession and he started construction work thereon. It was on the basis of the above findings that the title suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and the title suit filed by the respondent was decreed in toto. It was on the basis of the above findings that the title suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and the title suit filed by the respondent was decreed in toto. Above findings recorded by the trial Court found favour also with the District Judge who upheld the findings and dismissed the appeal of the appellant and a maintained the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Bongaigaon in both the suits. It is because of the dismissal of the two suits, that the present two appeals have been filed by the appellant. 9. Shri RK Jain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant who is assisted by Ms. D. Seal, Advocate raised following contentions in support of the two appeals. According to Shri Jain the trial Court without appreciating the case properly, specially the pleadings of the appellant passed the decree under challenge. It is contended that looking to the pleadings of the appellant it was necessary for the Courts to have recorded findings on the question of title or the saleable interest of Ramoni Mohan Choudhury in the suit land as the said land was part and parcel of the land which was involved in the Sale Deed No. 1993 (Ext Ka) executed by Sarat Chandra Choudhury, (original owner) the father of Ramoni Mohan Choudhury in appellants favour. Elucidating the argument, Shri Jain further contended that unless it was held that the sale deed executed by Shri Sarat Chandra Choudhury in favour of the appellant was a fake document conveying no title in favour of the appellant, it was not legally possible to uphold the title of the respondents on the basis of the subsequent sale deed executed by the son of the real owner, who in view of execution of the first sale deed by the original owner was left with no interest in the land to transfer by executing deed of title. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Courts below believed that Shri Ramoni Mohan Choudhury acquired saleable right over the land in suit by virtue of succession in his capacity as the son and legal heir of Sarat Chandra Choudhury and that the land in suit fell in his exclusive share on the basis of family partition which too was not proved. Hence contended the learned counsel, the sale deed allegedly executed by Ramoni Mohan Choudhury in favour of the respondent cannot be accepted as a proof of his title in the suit land. 10. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. No request either for adjournment of hearing of the appeal has been made on his behalf. Since the two arguments advanced by Shri Jain are inter connected. I would discuss them together. 11.1 find sufficient force in the arguments advanced by Shri Jain. As has been noticed herein above, respondent claimed title over the suit land on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour by Ramoni Mohan Choudhury. Ramoni Mohan Choudhury is said to have acquired saleable interest over the suit land under some family partition which allegedly took place between him and his brothers after the death of his father. The Courts below, totally ignored from their consideration the question whether any saleable interest in the suit land was acquired by Ramoni Mohan Choudhury after the death of this father. If so in what manner Ramoni Mohan Choudhury acquired exclusive right to sell the land in suit to the respondent all by himself. Determination of this question by the Courts below became more relevant in view of the appellants case that Sarat Chandra Choudhury, the original owner of the suit land had already executed registered sale deed in his favour for transferring his rights and title over the suit land and that after his death all his sons including Ramoni Mohan Choudhury jointly executed sale deed to transfer an area of 2 bigha, 3 lechas of land in the. same dag number including the suit land. Though reference of family partition was made but it was not proved. In absence of its proof existence of family a partition between Ramoni Mohan Choudhury and his brothers in respect of the suit land could not be presumed to believe that Ramoni Mohan Choudhury acquired exclusive right in the land in suit to become entitled to transfer it all by himself whereas in respect of another land there was material to establish that all the sons of Sarat Chandra Choudhury including Ramoni Mohan Choudhury had jointly sold (some other land) which too had been acquired by them from their -father by way of succession. 12. 12. In both the impugned judgments under appeal, I find no mention whatsoever of any discussion on the above questions. Both the Courts below have failed to examine the validity of the sale deed executed by Ramoni Mohan Choudhury in respondent's favour in the above perspective. The Courts below unfortunately, were swayed away from the finding recorded on the question of possession so as to uphold the title of the respondent over the suit land and for rejecting appellant's contention of title therein. In the absence of proper proof of lawful conveyance of title in the suit land in respondent's favour his suit could not be decreed. Where a party bases medi-claim on a document of title it becomes necessary for him to proved the satisfaction of the Court his such claim. Respondent d having failed to prove partition or family arrangement between the sons of Sarat Chandra Choudhury could not succeed in establishing his title over the suit land. 13. Neither of the parties claimed title over the land on the basis of possession.In the circumstances laying of too much emphasis on the question of possession by the Courts below was not called for. Since both claimed title over the land in suit on the basis of the sale deed one executed by the original owner in appellant's favour and the other by his successor in respondent's favour it become very necessary for the Courts below to examine the respective claims of title in the light of genuineness and validity of those sale deeds and right of the vendor in question to transfer title in the suit land. This important aspect the case was however totally ignored by the Courts below who laid undue emphasis on the question of possession over the suit land. Strangely no notice was taken of the manner in which Ramoni Mohan Choudhury acquired saleable interest in the suit land except for making' a casual reference about the family partition without anything more for its proof of. : 14. In view of the above, both the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. Judgment and decree in Title, Appeal No. 31 of 1993 and Title Appeal No. 37 of 1993 as also in Title Suit No. 13 of 1990 and Title Suit No. 9 of 1993 passed by the .Courts below are set aside. : 14. In view of the above, both the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. Judgment and decree in Title, Appeal No. 31 of 1993 and Title Appeal No. 37 of 1993 as also in Title Suit No. 13 of 1990 and Title Suit No. 9 of 1993 passed by the .Courts below are set aside. The suits are remanded back to the trial Court for fresh trial of the two suits in the lawful manner and in the light of the observations made .herein above. Cost of the appeals shall abide ^the fate of the suits before the trial Court hereafter.