JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal by some of the defendants in Title Suit No. 240/1979, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 1993 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge (now Civil Judge), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 85/1984, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 31st July, 1984, consequently decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit in the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj for declaration of their ownership right in respect of the land measuring 1 Hal 2 Kedar described in Schedule-1 to the plaint, for confirmation of possession in respect of the land measuring 1 Hal described in the Schedule-2 land, except the 2 Kedar of land described in Schedule-3 to the plaint and for permanent injunction against the defendants. It has been pleaded in the plaint that the land measuring 1 Hal 2 kedar was purchased by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely Ananda Mohan Modak and Binoda Sundari Modak, wife of Ananda Mohan Modak, by four different sale deeds dated 22nd October, 1955 (Exhibit-8); 13th November, 1955 (Exhibit-7); 5th November, 1956 (Exhibit-9) and 11th December, 1956 (Exhibit-10), from the original owners and thereby they have acquired the ownership over the land described in Schedule-1 to the plaint. It has been pleaded that by Exhibit-8 sale deed dated 22nd October, 1955, Ananda Mohan Modak purchased 8 Kedar 3 Powa 13/4 Jasthi of land from Naimur Raja Choudhury, Ahidur Raja Choudhury and Tauhidur Raja Choudhury. By Exhbit-9 sale deed dated 5th November, 1956, the wife of Ananda Mohan Modak purchased 6 Kedar 2 Powa 3 Jasthi 1 Pon land from the said vendors. By Exhibit-7 sale deed dated 13th November, 1955 Ananda Mohan Modak purchased 3 Kedar 5¼ Jasthi land from Mohumudur Raja Choudhury and by Exhibit-10 sale deed dated 11th December, 1956 Ananda Mohan Modak's wife Binoda Sundari Modak purchased 2 Kedar 1 Powa 3 Jasthi and 15 Pon land from the said Mohumudur Raja Choudhury. According to the plaintiffs, thus they have purchased 1 Hal 2 Keder of land from the original owners and thereby acquired the ownership right over the said land. According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid land comprised in Dag No. 240, 241/607. According to the plaintiffs, thus they have purchased 1 Hal 2 Keder of land from the original owners and thereby acquired the ownership right over the said land. According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid land comprised in Dag No. 240, 241/607. The further pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that Ananda Mohan Modak during his lifetime constructed a Kalibari and Sitala Bari over the land measuring 1 Keder 3 Powa 2 Jasthi and also allowed a road to be constructed over 4 Jasthi of land for going to the said Mandir thereby giving up the possession in respect of the land measuring 2 Keder out of 1 Hal 2 keder of land, which the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs have purchased from the original owners. It has also been pleaded that since the defendants, who are the Secretary and the Members of the Mandir Committee, mutated their names during the settlement operation in respect of the land the plaintiffs have to institute the suit for declaration of their ownership right as aforesaid. 2. The defendants on receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed their joint written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs. In the joint written statement, it has been pleaded that Khatian in respect of about 16 Bighas of land covered by Dag No. 240 has been issued and thereafter, as said land was acquired by the Government of Assam and accordingly, vested on the State Government under the provisions of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959 (in short, "1959 Act"), the plaintiffs ownership right over the said land cannot be declared. It has also been pleaded that the vendors of the plaintiffs transferred the Mirazdari right only in favour of the plaintiffs, as the land is under the possession of Kalibari in respect of which the Khatian under the Syllet Tenancy Act was issued. 3. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for determination:- (1) Is there any cause of action for the suit? (2) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (3) Is the suit barred by limitation? (4) Is the suit bad for misjoinder as well as for want of necessary parties? (5) Whether the area and description of the suit land correctly given in the plaint? (2) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (3) Is the suit barred by limitation? (4) Is the suit bad for misjoinder as well as for want of necessary parties? (5) Whether the area and description of the suit land correctly given in the plaint? (6) Have the plaintiffs right title and possession over the suit land?? (7) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? 4. The learned Munsiff upon appreciation of the evidences on record, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, which results in filing of the aforesaid appeal by the plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court by the aforesaid judgment, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by holding that by virtue of Exhibits-7 to 10 sale deeds the plaintiffs have acquired the ownership right in respect of the land measuring 1 Hal 2 Keder described in Schedule-1. The decree for confirmation of possession has also been passed in respect of Schedule-2 land measuring 1 Hal as over 2 Kedars of land Ananda Mohan Modak established the Kalibari and Sitala Bari. The plea taken by the defendants that the land was acquired by the Government of Assam under the provisions of the 1959 Act and hence, no ownership right of the plaintiffs could be declared, has been negated by holding that the Exhibit-B document, i.e. the draft statement prepared by the authority under Section 20(2) of the 1959 Act does not reflect issuance of the notification under Section 3 of the said Act. Hence the present appeal. 5. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 20th November, 1995 on the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the appeal before the Asstt. Dist. Judge abated as a whole for non substitution the names of deceased respondents Nos. 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29? ii) Whether the plaintiffs have any right over the entire land belonging to Jangla Kalibari including the suit land after acquisition under Assam State Acquisition of Lands (Religious and Charitable Institution of Public Nature) Act, 1959? iii) Whether the suit is barred by the provision of Article 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act? ii) Whether the plaintiffs have any right over the entire land belonging to Jangla Kalibari including the suit land after acquisition under Assam State Acquisition of Lands (Religious and Charitable Institution of Public Nature) Act, 1959? iii) Whether the suit is barred by the provision of Article 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act? iv) Whether the learned court below correctly interpreted Ex.1 to 8 and whether on the basis of the same, the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs could be declared? 6. I have heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, other than the respondent Nos. 6 to 12. None appears for the said respondents. 7. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel referring to the substantial questions of law as formulated vide order dated 20th November, 1995 at the outset has submitted that he does not press the substantial question of law Nos. 1 and 3 as the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the absence of some of the respondents therein is maintainable. It has also been submitted that the substantial question of law No. 3 also does not arise as there is no plea taken relating to the limitation. 8. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, however, has submitted that since the suit land vest on the Government by virtue of the notification issued under Section 3 of the 1959 Act, the first Appellate Court ought not to have declared the ownership right of the plaintiffs even though the plaintiffs have purchased the Mirazdari right over the suit land by virtue of Exhibits-7 to 10 sale deeds. It has also been submitted that though such a plea was specifically taken in the written statement filed, no issue has been framed though the same was most vital question to be gone into in the suit. Mr. It has also been submitted that though such a plea was specifically taken in the written statement filed, no issue has been framed though the same was most vital question to be gone into in the suit. Mr. Dhar further submits that in the absence of the issue as to whether the suit land was acquired under the provisions of the 1959 Act, the parties did not lead any evidence, except production of the draft statement prepared under Section 20(2) of the said Act by the defendants, which has been marked as Exhibit-B. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that it is a fit case where the specific issue in that regard may be framed and after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, the case may be remitted to the Trial Court for deciding the said issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence by both the parties. 9. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ respondents submits that since the draft statement under Section 20(2) of the 1959 Act requires to be prepared before issuance of the notification under Section 3 of the said Act, Exhibit-B draft statement cannot be the proof of acquisition of the land by the Government under the provisions of the 1959 Act. It has also been submitted that after finalization of the statement under section 20, there has to be a notification under Section 3 of the 1959 Act and on publication of such notification only the land vest on the Government free from all encumbrances. Mr. Das submits that the defendants though in the written statement pleaded that the land was acquired under the provisions of the 1959 Act, they, however, could not prove the acquisition of the said land and hence, the first Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs could prove the transfer of ownership by the original owners in favour of their predecessors-in-interest vide Exhibits-7 to 10 sale deeds. The learned senior counsel has submitted that though no issue as to whether the suit land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the 1959 Act has been framed, non framing of such issue would not vitiate the judgment and decree passed, as the defendants led evidence on that question and the finding has been recorded by the first Appellate Court, though no finding has been recorded in that regard by the Trial Court. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. I have also perused the documents exhibited, i.e. Exhibits-1 to 8, originals of which are produced by the learned senior counsel for the appellants before this Court and Exhibit-B. The said originals, however, are returned to the learned senior counsel for reproduction before the learned Court below. 11. It appears from the Exhibits-7 to 10 sale deeds, which were proved by the plaintiffs, that the ownership right was transferred by the original owners in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs. By virtue of such purchase, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs have acquired the ownership right in respect of the Schedule-1 land measuring 1 Hal 2 Keders. A specific plea, however, has been taken by the defendants in their written statement that the suit land has been acquired by the Government by issuing necessary notification under the provisions of the 1959 Act. Despite taking of such specific plea, no issue, however, has been framed by the Trial Court in that regard, though that was the most vital question to be gone into, as the plaintiffs despite acquisition of the ownership right over the suit land would not be entitled to the declaration of such right if the suit land has been acquired by the Government by issuing necessary notification under Section 3 of 1959 Act. If such a notification has been issued, from the date of issuance of such notification, the land would vest on the Government free from all encumbrances, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 4 of the said Act. 12. The first Appellate Court has recorded the finding that though the defendants have claimed the acquisition of the suit land under the 1959 Act, they could not prove the same. 12. The first Appellate Court has recorded the finding that though the defendants have claimed the acquisition of the suit land under the 1959 Act, they could not prove the same. It has further been held that the draft statement, Exhibit-B, prepared under Section 20(2) of the 1959 Act does not prove issuance of the notification under Section 3 of the said Act and consequent vesting of the property on the Government free from all encumbrances. The Trial Court, however, did not discuss anything in that regard, since no issue was framed. 13. It appears from the evidences adduced by the parties that the defendants except production and proof of the Exhibit-B draft statement prepared under Section 20(2) of the 1959 Act, did not lead any evidence on the question whether the land was acquired under the provisions of 1959 Act. No evidence in that regard was also led by the plaintiffs. The same naturally was not done because no issue was framed in that regard. In this case, therefore, it is not that in the absence of the issue, the parties have led evidence and hence non framing of the issue cannot be the ground for interference of the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court. 14. In view of the above, I am of the view that the following issue is required to be framed, which requires determination by the Trial Court after affording opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence:- Whether the suit land was acquired under the provisions of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature Act, 1959? 15. The Trial Court, however, would not go into the other issues except issue No. 7, as the issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have rightly been decided by the first Appellate Court, the findings on which issues are not in challenge and in this judgment it has been held that the plaintiffs by virtue of the sale deeds being Exhibits-7 to 10 have acquired ownership right, (issue No. 6) which right, however, would be extinguished if the land has been acquired by the Government under the provisions of the 1959 Act. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is set aside. The case is remitted to the Trial Court, namely the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is set aside. The case is remitted to the Trial Court, namely the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The parties are directed to appear before the said Court on 27th August, 2012. Having regard to the year of institution of the suit, the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit, as directed above, within 19th November, 2012. 16. The appeal is accordingly allowed as indicated above. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. The Registry is directed to send down the records to the Trial Court, so as to reach the said Court on or before 17th August, 2012. Appeal allowed.