Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Shri Awadhesh Kishore Prasad Singh, 2nd Additional District Judge, Sitamarhi in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1981/21 of 1983, filed by respondents which was decreed against the defendant 1st set who are the appellants before this Court. On appeal being preferred by the defendant 1st, this was also dismissed by the 1st appellate Court, as stated above. Hence, this second appeal. 2. In substance, the case of the plaintiff-respondents was for declaration that they had right of usar over survey Plot No. 511 as passage. The case of the defendant-appellant was that Plot No. 511 was under their title on purchase but however, this was recorded in revisional survey in the name of State of Bihar. Subsequently, this entry was challenged in the consolidation operation and this error was corrected. The right of easement claimed by the plaintiff-respondent was denied. The trial Court as also the appellate Court, failed to consider certain documents filed by the appellant and on the ground of this non-consideration, the judgments of both the lower Courts vitiated. In this appeal, substantial questions of law formulated for consideration in this appeal are as under: (i) Whether the certificate, in the circumstance, given by Mr. Thakur should be accepted; and, (ii) Whether if the certificate is accepted, non-consideration of the documents vitiated the judgment. 3. During the course of argument, it was pointed out by the appellants lawyer that the trial Court has catalogued the documents filed by the appellant at paragraph 7. However, these documents filed by the appellant were not, at all, considered by the trial Court, the appellate Court also failed to consider the documents, except Ext-J/5and Ext-K. On perusal of judgments of the trial Court, I find that of course, it referred to a bunch of documents filed and exhibited on behalf of appellants; but there is no finding of the trial Court on these documents and that these documents did not substantiate the case of the defendant-appellant regarding non-existence of easementary right of the plaintiff-respondent over Plot No. 511, The trial Court rather went by the oral evidence of plaintiff and defendant (appellant) and on the basis of certain admissions on the part of plaintiffs witnesses, it came to the conclusion that there was easementary right of the plaintiff-respondents on Plot No. 511. The appellate Court also considered Ext-J/5 and Ext-K filed on behalf of defendant-appellant, but it has neither referred to other documents filed by the appellant nor these documents were considered in order to give a finding whether there was existence of passage over Plot No. 511 used by the plaintiff-respondents. 4. The respondents lawyer has replied that he was not challenging the title of the defendant-appellant over Plot No. 511. His case was for easementary right and it was supported by the Pleader Commissioners report on behalf of respondents as also by the oral evidence. In this connection, there was also Pleader Commissioners report on behalf of defendant-appellant and I find that this was neither referred to nor considered by the two lower Courts. So there is, of course, a case of non-consideration of certain documents filed by the defendant-appellant and unless there is an opinion recorded by the first appellate Court whether there documents were sufficient to negative the case of easementary right claimed by the plaintiff-respondent, this Court is a bit handicapped in recording on finding, because it amounts to going into facts which must be done by the lower Court. 5. In the result, I am of the opinion that the 1st appeal deserves to be remanded in order to give a fresh judgment. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court are set aside. The case is remanded back to the first appellate Court with a direction that he shall pass a fresh judgment in the light of the documents and in the light of the oral and documentary evidence accused on behalf of parties.