JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 5 of 1991. 2. This Second Appeal was admitted for hearing by the order dated 17.12.1994 on the substantial questions of law as enumerated in the Memorandum of Appeal i.e., perversity committed by the learned first appellate Court based on surmises and conjectures without appreciation of evidence and violation of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC. 3. Title Suit No. 46 of 1986 was filed by the appellants in the Court of Assistant District Judge No. 1, Silchar praying for declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the suit land described in the Schedule to the plaint and for preliminary and final decree for partition with decree for recovery of possession in respect of five patta land namely, Second R.S. Patta Nos. 42, 24, 41, 60 and 23. 4. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit partly on contest against the contesting defendants and ex-parte against the other defendants declaring the title of the plaintiffs over 2B-11-K-2 Ch. of land in respect of Patta No. 42 and also over the land pertaining to other pattas. It appears that the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 contested the suit by filing written statement in respect of Patta Nos. 42, 24 and 23 only. The claim of the plaintiffs over Patta No. 41 of 60 has not been contested. The learned Trial Court rejected the title of the plaintiffs on the plot of land purchased vide Exhibit-10 as the land in question was sold by Gulabjan Begum for self and on behalf of two minors without permission from the Court of the District Judge. The plea of the plaintiffs that Gulabjan Begum and her two minor children have been impleaded in the suit as defendants did not find reason with the Trial Judge. The learned Trial Court excluded the land conveyed vide Exhibit-10 for the above defect. There is no dispute that the suit land was originally owned by Eusuf Ali, Irman Ali and Masad Ali, the former two having one-fourth share while the latter one-half share. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants have staked their claim by purchase as well as by inheritance. 5. Mr. There is no dispute that the suit land was originally owned by Eusuf Ali, Irman Ali and Masad Ali, the former two having one-fourth share while the latter one-half share. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants have staked their claim by purchase as well as by inheritance. 5. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned first appellate Court being the first appellate authority ought to have decided the matter issue-wise as is required under Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C. According to the learned counsel, gross perversity has crept in the judgment of the first appellate Court due to misreading of the material evidence on record. 6. The judgment dated 31.8.1994 passed by the learned first appellate Court ex-facie shows that the learned appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence with reference to the issues framed. The learned first appellate Court abruptly concluded that the plaintiffs (respondents) failed to establish their claim in respect of the lands pertaining to Patta Nos. 23, 24 and 42. 7. The plaintiffs on the basis of inheritance as well as by purchase claimed title over 1B-2K-5Ch-2 Gondas in Patta No. 42, 1B-16K-2Ch-15 Gondas in Patta No. 41 and 2B-11K-2Ch in Patta No. 23. The land in dispute in its entirety is in ejmali (joint) possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to partition the land amicably. Having failed, they filed applications for partition before the Collector which were rejected on the ground that the share of revenue of the plaintiffs is less than Rs. 5. 8. It is already stated hereinbefore that the defendants did not contest the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of Patta Nos. 41 and 60. Therefore, the dispute with regard to Patta Nos. 42, 24 and 23 are being dealt with. Defendant's case is that Masad Ali was not the owner of one-half of the suit patta land and the plaintiffs' have exaggerated their claim in so far Patta Nos. 42, 24 and 23 are concerned. The further case of the defendants is that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the land of the minors sold by their mother vide Exhibit-10. 9. Exhibits-1 and 2 are the certified copies of Jamabandi admitted in evidence without any objection. Similarly, the registered sale deeds executed on different dates have also been admitted without any objection. The further case of the defendants is that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the land of the minors sold by their mother vide Exhibit-10. 9. Exhibits-1 and 2 are the certified copies of Jamabandi admitted in evidence without any objection. Similarly, the registered sale deeds executed on different dates have also been admitted without any objection. The plaintiffs relied upon Exhibits-3 to 8, 10, 11 and 14 to 17 to prove their title. The evidence on record also disclose that Masad Ali was the owner of one-half of the land while Eusuf Ali and Irman Ali were owners of one-fourth each. There is no evidence on record to hold a contrary view. The purchase deeds exhibited and referred to above have not been disputed by the defendants except Exhibit-10 which has been disputed on the ground that the sale deed was executed in favour of Kala Mea, the plaintiff (since deceased) by Gulabjan Begum on behalf of the minor children. It is on this ground, the learned Trial Judge excluded the land alienated by Exhibit-10. Their being no cross appeal, this exclusion cannot be re-opened for consideration at this stage. 10. The land covered by Dag No. 106 of Patta No. 42 is, admittedly, the homestead land of the contesting defendants who claim to have owned the same by virtue of Exhibits-A, B and C. Exhibit-A is a deed of sale executed on 16.4.1958. By this document Husan Banum, wife of Masad Ali sold 1B-4K-11Ch of land pertaining to Dag No. 106 in favour of the defendants. Exhibit-B is another sale deed executed by Johur Ali and others in favour of the defendants. This document has been discarded by the learned Trial Judge as not relatable to the suit land. Husan Banu is not a party to this deed of sale. Exhibit-C is another deed of sale executed on 29.9.1984 by which the defendants claimed to have purchased the share of Husan Banu. Husain Banu was the wife of Masad Ali and on her husband's death she married Irman Ali from whom she also purchased some land. But Husan Banu, prior to the execution of Exhibit-C, had already sold the land vide Exhibits-16 and 17 in the year 1951 in favour of the plaintiffs. So, the purchase of her share of land vide Exhibit-C by the defendants at a much later date cannot get precedence. But Husan Banu, prior to the execution of Exhibit-C, had already sold the land vide Exhibits-16 and 17 in the year 1951 in favour of the plaintiffs. So, the purchase of her share of land vide Exhibit-C by the defendants at a much later date cannot get precedence. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of Patta No. 42 stands established. There is no dispute with regard to the title of the defendants so far the land purchased vide Exhibit-E is concerned. Exhibit-F is not a subject matter of dispute. With regard to Exhibit-G the learned Trial Judge held that one Irman Ali, son of late Anju Mea purchased some land from Ibrahim Ali, son of Masad Ali. This land pertains to Dag Nos. 101 and 102 and is also not relevant to the case at hand. With regard to Exhibit-H, it appears that the learned Trial Judge did not find any necessity to take this document into consideration since the written statement is silent about this. 11. The appreciation of evidence and the decision arrived at by the learned Trial Judge required no interference by the first appellate Court. After going through the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs (appellants) have succeeded in establishing their claim over 3B-9Ch-50 Gondas of land in Patta No. 42. They also succeeded in establishing their title over 1B-14Ch-5 1/2 Gondas of land in respect of Patta No. 24. In respect of Patta No. 23, the defendants adduced no evidence to prove their title whatsoever. The defendants did not contest the claim of the plaintiffs over the land in Patta Nos. 41 and 60. The learned Trial Court appears to have rightly determined the share of the plaintiffs over the suit pattas. 12. The learned first appellate Court without considering the title deeds of the respective parties abruptly concluded that the oral evidence of Abdur Rahman (defendant) shows that the defendants came in possession of the land by purchase from different vendors. Based on this observations, the learned first appellate Court held that the appellants (plaintiffs) filed to establish their claim over the land in respect of Patta Nos. 23, 24 and 42. Based on this observations, the learned first appellate Court held that the appellants (plaintiffs) filed to establish their claim over the land in respect of Patta Nos. 23, 24 and 42. This is an unguided observation made by the first appellate Court without application of mind to the evidence on record and this alone shows that the judgment of the first appellate Court is totally perverse. It is also apparent that the provisions of Order 41 , Rule 31 C.P.C. have not been followed while delivering the judgment. The substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission of the appeal are answered accordingly. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 5/91 is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Suit No. 46/86 are hereby affirmed. 14. No costs.