Order The instant three appeals arise out of common Title Suit No. 42 of 1998 instituted by Munga Lal Gupta, the plaintiff against Gopal Chandra Verma and other defendants for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule A attached at the foot of the plaint and also a declaration to the effect that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, against the contesting defendants by Sub Judge I, Garhwa vide judgment and decree dated 29th April, 2008. 2. The trial court framed as many as seven issues. Issue Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 were decided together while decreeing the suit. The three appeals were preferred against the said judgment-Title Appeal No. 11 of 2008 preferred by the appellants Hussaini Mahto, Baldeo Mahto and Ram Gahan Mahto; Title Appeal No. 12 of 2008 by Gopal Chandra Verma, Jay Prakash Narayan, Sudhir Kumar Verma and Praduman Verma and Title Appeal No. 13 of 2008 by Anil Kumar Sinha. The three appeals were clubbed together and decided in common judgment by the District Judge, Garhwa vide judgment dated 25th August, 2009 and the decree dated 1st September, 2009. The three appeals have been preferred by the respective appellants which are once again being decided simultaneously by this judgment. 3. Heard Mr. L.K. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary assisted by Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The three appeals have been preferred by the respective appellants which are once again being decided simultaneously by this judgment. 3. Heard Mr. L.K. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary assisted by Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The appellate court was of the opinion that the trial court was in error while adjudicating all the issues together, whereas, in a declaratory suit, the question of title as well as other connected issues have to be gone into separately and meticulously and the sale deed which was the basis of the plaintiffs’ claim should have been examined in its proper perspective so that to substantiate that the vendor of the sale deed had title to execute the sale deed in favour of the vendee which is the foundation stone of the entire plaint case and chain of title should have been complete,therefore, the judgment of the trial court was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court to pass a fresh judgment in accordance with law on the individual issues referred in the judgment of the appellate court. 5. Mr. L.K. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants, while assailing the judgment of the District Judge has raised a number of questions. The first criticism of the learned counsel is that the judgment of remand cannot stand the legal scrutiny in view of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”). Argument is that the court should have proceeded under Order XLI Rule 25 C.P.C. The court was liable to frame the issue or issues and remit the same for a fresh trial and determine questions of fact and law which the appellate court considered essential to settle the rights of the parties and if necessary, to take additional evidence if the circumstances called for. It was the particular issue framed specifically should be remanded instead of setting aside the complete trial court judgment for a fresh decision. 6. The next argument is to the effect that the appellate court has remanded the entire case for retrial without even assessing the evidence and recording a finding that the evidence was insufficient or the decision of the trial court calls for a complete overhaul of the judgment. 7. 6. The next argument is to the effect that the appellate court has remanded the entire case for retrial without even assessing the evidence and recording a finding that the evidence was insufficient or the decision of the trial court calls for a complete overhaul of the judgment. 7. The third argument is that the contesting parties i.e. the plaintiffs and the defendants had knowledge of the questions in dispute, even if certain issues were not framed, then the appellate court should have proceeded under Order XLI Rule 24 C.P.C., he should have framed issues and recorded its own finding. Since there is no finding by the appellate court regarding insufficiency of evidence, in such a circumstance, the appellate court was liable to pronounce the judgment itself resettling the issue, if necessary, especially determine the suit, notwithstanding the judgment of the court below. The lower appellate court apparently failed to look into the trial court judgment and the questions to be decided after remand stood already decided by the trial court. 8. The last argument is that the Apex Court as well as the various High Courts has repeatedly maintained that litigation should not be prolonged and protracted and endeavour should be made to decide the question itself instead of directing a complete retrial. The learned counsel has emphasised the factual aspects to highlight his argument that the factual questions raised by the appellate court relating to Ext. A, the deed of settlement/gift deed allegedly executed by Tilak Dhari Mahto in favour of Jagan Mahto, Biren Mahto and Sita Mahto. The appellate court recorded a finding expressing its doubt in respect of the gift deed or the deed of settlement in favour of Jagan Mahto, Biren Mahto and Sita Mahto from which they derived their title and if it was not a valid settlement then the consequent right to execute sale deed and finally the validity of title on the basis of such a sale deed. The appellate court also expressed its doubt regarding plaintiffs claim since it is not on the basis of having any right as a raiyat of the State of Bihar by virtue of adverse possession. 9. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while disputing the arguments and challenging the questions raised by Mr. The appellate court also expressed its doubt regarding plaintiffs claim since it is not on the basis of having any right as a raiyat of the State of Bihar by virtue of adverse possession. 9. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while disputing the arguments and challenging the questions raised by Mr. L.K. Lal that remand should have been made under Order XLI Rule 24 or Rule 25 C.P.C. and the entire judgment of the trial court could not be quashed. It is submitted by the respondents’ counsel that Section 107 C.P.C. deals with the general provisions relating to appeal. Section 107 C.P.C. reads as under:- "107. Powers of the appellate Court.--(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an appellate Court shall have power-- (a) to determine a case finally; (b) to remand a case; (c) to frame issues and refer them for trial; (d) to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. (2) Subject as aforesaid, the appellate court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. 10. The appellate court has power under Section 107 (b) C.P.C. to remand the case and not necessarily determine it himself or to frame issue and refer only the said issue for retrial. It is further stated that in the instant case since the lower appellate court considered that question of facts requires readjudication and, therefore, instead of remitting a single issue, it has clearly stated that separate issue should have been framed regarding the fact that the chain of title of the plaintiffs is complete from its initial stage i.e. from the stage of settlement till the date the sale deed was executed. Unless the chain of title is complete, the suit could not be decreed declaring title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was liable to substantiate its claim and, therefore, the appeal was rightly remanded and the judgment of trial court set at naught. The learned counsel has further stated that since the settlement in favour of Tilak Dhari Mahto is specifically disputed; therefore, the question of inheritance does not arise. The plaintiff was liable to substantiate its claim and, therefore, the appeal was rightly remanded and the judgment of trial court set at naught. The learned counsel has further stated that since the settlement in favour of Tilak Dhari Mahto is specifically disputed; therefore, the question of inheritance does not arise. In absence of inheritance Jagan Mahto, Biren Mahto and Sita Mahto-nephew of Tilak Dhari Mahto had no title and Tilak Dhari Mahto could not have gifted the disputed property and, therefore, the chain was incomplete. Besides it is also argued that the instant case remand order is in fact one under Order XLI Rule 23A C.P.C. In the present case, the appellate court has not disposed of the appeal on a preliminary point. In fact the learned District Judge has reversed the decree in appeal and directed the trial court for a retrial and the appellate court has exercised the same powers as under Rule 23 of Order XLI C.P.C. 11. While replying the arguments of the respondents counsel, the appellants counsel reiterated his argument and disputed that it is a remand under Order XLI Rule 23 or 23A C.P.C. 12. After hearing the respective counsel for the parties at length and going through the judgment of the lower appellate court, it is evident that the trial court recorded its judgment by clubbing all the issues and the final conclusion was arrived without analysing individual questions. The facts of the case, the legal questions that emerges and thereafter the entitlement of relief of the plaintiff is all taken together without taking into consideration that the questions framed in separate issues are independent in nature. The relief of declaration of title and possession were to be decided separately while going into the question of title, the court should have traced the right of settlement and consequent sale deed and the initial title separately and thereafter the question of possession since the relief was for a declaration of title as well as a declaration of possession. The relief of declaration of title and possession were to be decided separately while going into the question of title, the court should have traced the right of settlement and consequent sale deed and the initial title separately and thereafter the question of possession since the relief was for a declaration of title as well as a declaration of possession. In case the settlement as alleged by the plaintiffs was a question of dispute between the two persons between Aliyar Mahto and Tilak Dhari Mahto, the court was liable to give a specific and separate decision regarding the gift deed by Tilak Dhari Mahto in favour of Jagan Mahto, Biren Mahto and Sita Mahto who had also executed the sale deed, the vendor of the plaintiffs. I am not inclined to give any finding on the merits of the case, but while examining the judgment of the lower appellate court, I am in agreement with the conclusions arrived at that the issues framed are liable to be decided separately as well as the question whether the settlement was made by the ex-landlord in the joint name of Aliyar Mahto and Tilak Dhari Mahto and whether Tilak Dhari Mahto executed the gift deed in favour of Jagan Mahto, Biren Mahto and Sita Mahto was valid and thereafter the question of right to execute the sale deed and the consequent title of Bansi Prasad Gupta, the vendor of the plaintiffs should have been decided as an individual issue. The judgment cited by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Gaya Mahto vs. Lila Devi and others [2004 (3) J C R 624 (Jhr)] is a case which deals with the remand of a case without recording any finding that the retrial of the suit was necessary and, therefore, it was held the mandate of Rule 24 C.P.C. was not valid and further said that ordinarily remand of a case under Rule 23A is not correct. This finding is based only because the appellate court considered that the reasonings given by the trial court in some respect was wrong or inconsistent with the evidence. This is not the circumstance in the instant case. The lower appellate court has gone through the entire record and evidence, thereafter recorded specific reasons that since all the issues have been inter-linked resulting in an improper adjudication and a declaration without tracing out chain of title. This is not the circumstance in the instant case. The lower appellate court has gone through the entire record and evidence, thereafter recorded specific reasons that since all the issues have been inter-linked resulting in an improper adjudication and a declaration without tracing out chain of title. This is admittedly required to be done after taking evidence and recording a specific and a separate conclusion. Finding has been recorded that the trial court did not critically examine the issue involved in the case and joined multifarious issue; whereas each of the issue required independent adjudication on the basis of evidence. Evidence recorded to prove one issue could not be taken to be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion in respect of all the issues and, therefore, the order of remand is not under Rule 24 or 25 of Order XLI C.P.C. as asserted by the learned counsel and, in my view, the remand order does not call for any interference in the instant appeal. 13. For the reasons given above, I do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. The miscellaneous appeals lack merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, no order as to costs. 14. It is, however, made clear that the trial court shall proceed expeditiously without granting any undue adjournment to either party and additional evidence shall be allowed only if it is necessary. Appropriate opportunity should be given to both the parties and the matter shall be decided within a period of six months from the date the lower court records is received by the trial court. The office is directed to remit the entire lower court records along with a copy of this order to the trial court within a period of two weeks from today.