This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1st August, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Darrang at Mangaldai in Title Appeal No.9/1989, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/respondent has been allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17th May, 1989 passed in Title Suit No.7(31)/1987. [2] The respondent as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of right, title and interest as well as for recovery of the khas possession in respect of 2 kathas 10 Lechas of land described in Schedule- Kha contending that though he is the owner and possessing the land measuring 25 Bighas 0 Katha 6 Lechas in Dag Nos.66, 277, 440, 441, 554 and 455 of Periodic Patta No.102 in Village- Hatemtola under Sipajhar Mouza since the days of his father including the Ka Schedule land measuring 4 Bighas 1 Katha 2 Lechas covered by Dag No.66, which is part of the entire land measuring 25 Bighas 6 Lechas, the defendants, who have land on the southern side of the plaintiff's land, in the month of December, 1983 trespassed into the land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas in Dag No.66, described in Schedule- Kha and dispossessed the plaintiff therefrom, which necessitated institution of the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and also for recovery of khas possession in respect of Schedule- Kha land. [3] The defendants contested the suit by filling the written statement contending inter alia that the land was originally belonged to the father of Gone Seikh, Dumahu Seikh, Muluk Shah and Omar Ali, whose names were recorded in the Periodic Patta No.31 in the year 1930-31 and the said Patta was subsequently renumbered as Patta No.102. According to the defendants, the said land was subsequently partitioned amongst the 4(four) brothers and out of the land fell in the share of Omar Ali, one of the brothers, land measuring 1 Bigha 0 Katha 1 Lecha was transferred by his sons, namely Samsher, Akbar and Ibrahim, by registered deed of sale dated 24th April, 1970 (Exhibit- Unga) to the defendants and accordingly, they are possessing the said land, which includes the suit land described in Schedule- Kha. It has also been pleaded that during resettlement, the Patta in respect of the entire land was illegally issued in favour of the plaintiff being Patta No.102, which includes the land fell into the share of Omar, one of the brother. [4] The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for consideration and decision:- “(1) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (3) Whether the plaintiff has paid insufficient Court fee? (4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (5) Whether the suit is lead for non joinder of heirs of Late Omar Ali? (6) Whether the plaintiffs has right, title and interest over the suit land? (7) Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed while in possession? (8) To what relief(s) if any, the parties is entitled? Addl. Issues: (9) Whether the plaintiff has obtained the patta by fraudulently in Collusion with revenue staff as alleged in the written statement?” [5] While the plaintiff examined 2(two) witnesses and exhibited a number of documents including the Patta No.102 (Exhibit-1) issued in the year 1986, which includes the suit land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas, the defendant examined 6(six) witnesses and proved a number of documents including the Patta No.31 issued in the year 1930-31 (Exhibit- Ka) as well as the sale deed dated 24th April, 1970 (Exhibit- Unga). [6] The Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record adduced by the parties, both oral and documentary, dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff could not prove the source of title. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/respondent preferred Title Appeal No.9/1989, which was also dismissed, resulting in filing of Second Appeal No.141/1993 in this Court. [7] The said second appeal was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 25th November, 1998 directing the First Appellate Court to decide the question of title and the right of the plaintiff to get the recovery of possession, on the basis of the Patta being Exhibit-1 and taking into account the rebuttal evidence, if any, adduced by the defendants/appellants. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment and order are quoted below:- “7. Next question is that whether the Ext.1 was interpreted by the courts below properly. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment and order are quoted below:- “7. Next question is that whether the Ext.1 was interpreted by the courts below properly. A perusal of the Ext.1 will show that this is periodic Patta which was issued at the time of settlement and there is absolutely no evidence to show that this is fraudulent and collusive document. No doubt, mere production of Patta itself cannot be conclusive piece of evidence, that evidence may be rebutted but whether there was such rebuttal evidence or not, that aspect of the matter was not considered by any of the courts below. Accordingly it is found that the courts below did not consider that aspect of the matter. 8. Sri Goswami draws my attention to the evidence of D.W.1 where in the D.W.1 admitted that Akbar and Ibrahim both were minor at the time of sale in 1970 and it was further admitted by him that Akbar was insane. So it cannot be understood how the defendant can acquire title on the basis of such sale made by the minors as well as by the person who was insane at that point of time. That aspect of the matter also was not considered by the courts below. Already it has been held that Ext.1 was not a fraudulent document. This being the position and it being found that the question of the title of the plaintiff was not properly gone into by the courts below there is no alternative but to remand this matter to the Learned Appellate Court to decide the question of title of the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence already on record and thereafter to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. But it is made clear that the question of limitation shall not be reopened by the trial court nor the question of fraudulent of Ext.1 shall be looked into by the appellate court. The appellate court shall decide the question of title and right of the plaintiff to get the recovery of possession.” [8] The First Appellate Court thereafter, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 1st August, 2000 decided the appeal in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, decreeing the suit and reversing the judgment and decree dated 17th May, 1989 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Mangaodai in the aforesaid suit. Hence, the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal. [9] The appeal has been admitted for hearing vide order dated 2nd November, 2000 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1) Whether the finding as to title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land of the learned lower Appellate Court is perverse being contrary to the evidence on record? 2) Whether the learned appellate Court misread the Plaint and made out a third case that the plaintiff acquired by inheritance? 3) Whether mere issue of Patta and/or entry in the record of rights creates title or extinguishes or has any presumptive value of title in view of Section 41 read with 53 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, if not whether the assumption of the lower Appellate Court that, Ext.1 conferred title to the plaintiff is legally sustainable? 4) Whether the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court that Ext. 'Unga' sale-deed that it is wholly void is a serious error of law and the plaintiff's is competent to challenge the same? 5) Whether the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated for non consideration of the oral and various documentary evidence adduced by the parties?” [10] I have heard Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. [11] It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that though a single Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25th November, 1998 passed in Second Appeal No.141/1993 directed the First Appellate Court to decide the question as to whether the plaintiff's title in respect of the suit land can be declared on the basis of the Patta being Exhibit-1 upon taking into consideration of the rebuttal evidence, if any, adduced by the defendants, the First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the present respondent, even without taking into consideration the evidences adduced by the defendants rebutting the plaintiff's claim of title by virtue of Exhibit-1. It has also been submitted that the First Appellate Court has also not decided whether the right, title and interest of the plaintiff, on the basis of the Patta issued, can be declared. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the case may be remanded to the First Appellate Court for deciding the first appeal in terms of the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 25th November, 1998. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the case may be remanded to the First Appellate Court for deciding the first appeal in terms of the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 25th November, 1998. [12] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, supporting the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court submits that vide judgment and order dated 25th November, 1998 passed in Second Appeal No.141/1993 what was directed to be looked into by the First Appellate Court was whether there was any rebuttal evidence relating to the conformant of the title on the plaintiff vide Exhibit-1 and the First Appellate Court has discussed the entire evidences adduced by the defendants while allowing the appeal, which requires no interference in the second appeal. [13] It appears from the impugned judgment and decree dated 1st August, 2000 passed by the First Appellate Court that while the question as to whether the defendants acquired the right, title and interest by virtue of the sale deed vide Exhibit- Unga was gone into and held that there cannot be any valid transfer by the minors, one of who was admittedly insane and thereby recording the finding that the defendants cannot acquire any title by virtue of Exhibit- Unga sale deed, there is no discussion relating to the evidence of the defendants including the Patta, which was originally issued in the names of 4(four) persons, namely Gone Seikh, Dumahu Seikh, Muluk Shah (father of the plaintiff) and Omar Ali in the year 1930-31, Exhibit- Ka. The learned Court below has also not considered the effect of the Exhibit- Ka on the Exhibit-1 issued in the year 1986 pertaining to the same land. [14] In view of the above, the present appeal stands allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 1st August, 2000 and remanding the case to the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh on the basis of the evidences already on record. The First Appellate Court shall only go into the question as to whether the plaintiff has acquired the title by virtue of Exhibit-1 Patta and whether there was any rebuttal evidence by the defendants, apart from the effect of Exhibit- Ka on Exhibit-1. The First Appellate Court shall only go into the question as to whether the plaintiff has acquired the title by virtue of Exhibit-1 Patta and whether there was any rebuttal evidence by the defendants, apart from the effect of Exhibit- Ka on Exhibit-1. The question as to whether the defendants could get any valid title by virtue of Exhibit- Unga shall not be gone into, as the First Appellate Court in the impugned judgment and decree, upon discussion of the evidences on record has recorded the finding that the vendor of the defendants, namely Akbar and Ibrahim, being minor, out of whom Ibrahim was an insane person, which has been admitted by the DW-1 himself in his evidence, there cannot be any valid transfer in favour of the defendants. [15] The suit having been instituted in the year 1987, the First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on the basis of the evidences already on record within a period of 2(two) months from the date of appearance of the parties as fixed by this Court. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 30th January, 2012. [16] The Registry is directed to send down the records, so as to reach the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Darrang at Mangaldai on or before 24th January, 2012. [17] The Assistant Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to ensure transmission of the record accordingly. [18] The appeal accordingly stands allowed, as indicated above. No costs.