JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. F.U. Borbhuyan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree of reversal dated 22-07-2004 passed by the Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 39/2002 allowing the appeal filed by the defendants as appellants thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13-05-2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 2, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 176/1999 whereby the learned Trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 3. The case of the appellant plaintiff, in brief, is that Gopendra Namasudra and Dhaniram Namasudra, both sons of late Madhab Namasudra, were the resident of village Suprakandi and enjoying right and possession in respect of the suit land as jute tenants under the landlord Kumar Bahadur. The said two persons had sold the jute right in respect of the suit land to the plaintiff about 38/39 years ago and delivered possession in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, Gopendra Namasudra had cancelled his name in the touzi of the landlord and substituted the name of the plaintiff in the touzi. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the said plot of land and enjoying tenancy right in respect thereof. The plaintiff had also engaged labourers for carrying out cultivation of the suit land and during the settlement operation in the year 1960-69 the plaintiff’s name was recorded in the records of right in the mouza Omarpur Part-IV under Dag No. 561 of Khatian No. 116 on the strength of the entry of his name in the touzi. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that although the defendants being his stepsisters did not have any right, title and interest over the suit land, yet, they have been openly professing their claim over the suit land and had also threatened to wrongfully dispossess the plaintiff which compelled him to institute the suit for declaration of right, title and interest; confirmation of possession and for temporary and permanent injunction. 5. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement inter-alia questioning the maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of cause of action; suit being barred by limitation as well as bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 5. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement inter-alia questioning the maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of cause of action; suit being barred by limitation as well as bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The defendants have denied the case of the plaintiff in general while claiming the right, title and interest and possession of the land on the basis of right of purchase. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court had framed as many as four issues which are as follows:- 1. Is there case of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? 3. Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 7. During the course of the trial both sides examined three witnesses and produce documentary evidence. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record the learned Trial Court had decided the issue No. 1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaratory decree as prayed for in the suit. Issue No. 4 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff as a result of which plaintiff’s suit stood decreed with all the reliefs prayed for. 8. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendants as appellants had preferred Title Appeal No. 39/2002 in the court of Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Karimganj questioning the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned First Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of reversal dated 22-07-2004 passed by the lower Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 39/2002 the instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff as appellant which was admitted by this Court to be heard on the following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Shri Banubhusan Chakraborty, whose name reflects in Exbt. ‘A’. 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Shri Banubhusan Chakraborty, whose name reflects in Exbt. ‘A’. 2. Whether the Judgment passed by the learned appellate court is in conformity with the provision of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. 9. Arguing in support of the substantial question of law No. 1, Mr. Borbhuyan, while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Radhabari Tea Company (P.) Ltd. Vs. Mridul Kumar Bhattacharjee & Ors. reported in (2010) 2 GLR 231, submits that it is settled law that a suit cannot be dismissed for non-joinder of a party unless the said party is held to be a necessary party. He submits, a necessary party to a suit is a person against whom the right to relief has been claimed and in whose absence it would not be possible to pass any effective decree. However, in the instant suit the plaintiff had not claimed any relief against Bhanubhusan Chakraborty. As such, there was no scope for the learned First Appellate Court to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground of non-joinder of Bhanubhusan Chakraborty in the suit merely on the ground that his name appears as co-sharer in the suit land. Arguing in support of 2nd substantial of law Mr. Borbhuyan submits that law is well settled that the First Appellate Court is the final court of fact and as such is required to record it’s independent decision in respect of all the issues based on evidence on record, particularly when it passes a judgment of reversal. However, in the instant case there has been total non-compliance of the requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. Such being the position, submits Mr. Borbhuyan the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside by this Court. 10. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant/plaintiff has neither pleaded any material facts nor lead any evidence to show that there was cause of action for filing the suit. In such view of the matter learned First Appellate Court has rightly observed that the issue No. 1 has been erroneously decided by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Mr. In such view of the matter learned First Appellate Court has rightly observed that the issue No. 1 has been erroneously decided by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Mr. Paul further submits that a suit can be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and therefore, unless the appellant succeed in showing any error in the view taken by the learned First Appellate Court, there is no scope for interference with the same at the stage of a second appeal. 12. I have considered the rival submission made by and on behalf of the parties and have also perused the judgment and decree under appeal. A scrutiny of the judgment rendered by the learned Lower Appellate Court goes to show that the decision of the Trial Court as regards issue No. 3 has been reversed primarily on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party and taking note of certain discrepancies in respect of the certified copy of the Khatiyan produced as Exhibit-1. The issue No. 3 pertains to the question of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. As such, the question of non-joinder of necessary party would obviously not have any direct bearing on the question of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land in the facts of the present case. At any rate, Bhanubhusan Chakraborty merely being a co-sharer in respect of the suit land wherein no relief has been prayed for by the plaintiff against him, the question of dismissal of the plaintiffs suit on the ground of non-joinder of said Bhanubhusan Chakraborty cannot arises in the eye of law. A bare perusal of the plaint discloses that the basic grievance of the plaintiff is the suit is against the defendants who are his stepsisters and as such, the conclusion drawn by the learned First Appellate Court in respect of issue No. 3 appears to be perversed on the face of the record. 13. As regards the decision on the other issues, a perusal of the impugned judgment does not discloses any conscious application of mind by the learned First Appellate Court so as to record any clear finding of fact in respect of any of those issues. The impugned judgment appears to be based on presumption and summarized without having any material basis. As regards the decision on the other issues, a perusal of the impugned judgment does not discloses any conscious application of mind by the learned First Appellate Court so as to record any clear finding of fact in respect of any of those issues. The impugned judgment appears to be based on presumption and summarized without having any material basis. Such being the position this Court is of the unhesitant view that the judgment and decree is in clear contravention of the mandate of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and as such unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. 14. It is trite law that the First Appellate Court is the final court of fact having jurisdiction to address issue of law. Hence, a proper decision of the First Appellate Court on all the issues, more particularly when it is a case of reversal of a decree, is a sine qua non. Since the First Appellate Court has not rendered any specific finding in respect of any of the issue based on the materials available on record, hence, I consider it to be a fit case where the first appeal needs to be heard afresh on merit by considering the evidence available on record. Accordingly, the matter stands remanded to the First Appellate Court. The Title Appeal No. 39/2002 would stand readmitted in the court of Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge, Karimganj. Since the parties are present before this Court today, hence, no further notice is required to be sent. It is directed that both the parties would remain present before learned lower Appellate Court on 14-12-2015 for further order(s) to be passed in the appeal. 15. Registry to transmit the LCR as expeditiously as possible. Having regard to the fact that the suit is an old one pertaining to the year 1999, hence, the learned lower Appellate Court may make an endeavour for expeditious disposal of the appeal, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the record. With the above observation this second appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to cost.