JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. SP Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. FU Barbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Title Suit No.193/2001 was brought about by the respondents herein praying for declaration of joint title over the suit path described in schedule II of the plaint, for recovery of khas possession of the Schedule III suit land by evicting the defendants, confirmation of joint possession on the rest part of the schedule II suit path as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the southern part of the schedule II suit land. The appellants herein as defendants contested the suit and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint with a prayer for dismissal of the suit on account of being false and vexatious. 3. The Trial Court framed as many as four issues, which are; (i) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for? (iv) To what relief/reliefs, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to? During the trial, two witnesses from either side were examined and the documentary evidence produced by the parties were considered. 4. Upon appreciation of the depositions of the witnesses of either side including that of the Advocate Commissioner, Sri Taher Ahmed Choudhury and also taking note of the documentary evidence, i.e. Ext-1 (Sale Deed No. 4223/1952), Ext-3 (Vandyke Map) both produced by the respondents/plaintiffs as well as Ext-E (Vandyke Map), Ext-H (report of the Advocate Commissioner), Ext-G (Sale Deed No.1555 dated 9.3.1953), all produced by the appellant/defendants, the Trial Court held that the existence of the suit path was found established on the eastern side of the homestead of the respondents/plaintiffs. In so far as the claim of title over the suit land by the appellants/defendants is concerned, the same was held as not established in the absence of any documents produced from the side of the defendants. The issues so framed were decided in affirmative after taking note of the depositions and evidence on record and eventually the title suit was decreed on contest without cost. The issues so framed were decided in affirmative after taking note of the depositions and evidence on record and eventually the title suit was decreed on contest without cost. Accordingly, by the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2006, the respondents/plaintiffs' joint title over the schedule II suit path was declared and the appellants/defendants were directed to vacate the schedule III land and were further restrained from encroaching upon the southern part of the schedule II suit land. 5. In Title Appeal No. 44/2006, preferred by the appellants/defendants, the First Appellate Court concurred with the findings and the decision of the Trial court by independently going through the entire case record including the pleadings, evidence and documents exhibited by the respective parties. The First Appellate Court while identifying the dispute between the parties and as detailed in paragraph 12 of the judgment, dismissed the appeal on contest, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 6. The second appeal before this Court was admitted for hearing vide order dated 25.1.2010 on the following substantial questions of law, "1. Whether the learned Courts below erred in law in declaring title of the plaintiff on the basis of Exbt.1? 2. Whether the impugned lower appellate judgment is in compliance with Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 3. Whether the finding of the learned Courts below as to existence of path is perverse? 4. Whether the claim of the plaintiff as to title over suit path is barred u/s 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? 5. Whether the prayers of the plaintiffs are maintainable? 6. Any other questions, which may be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal?" 7. Mr. SP Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that answers to the second and the fourth substantial questions of law so formulated would adequately decide the fate of this appeal. Mr. Choudhury submits that on the face of it the judgment by the First Appellate Court cannot stand scrutiny of law, inasmuch as, the same was rendered without complying with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Chouhdury submits that the First Appellate Court did not ascertain the points for determination and there was no discussion on the issues so framed. Mr. Chouhdury submits that the First Appellate Court did not ascertain the points for determination and there was no discussion on the issues so framed. Further, the statements as well as the evidence on record did not fall for consideration before the First Appellate Court. Mr. Choudhury while maintaining that the judgment of the First Appellate Court is hit by the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, also relies upon the decision in H Siddiqui (Dead) by Lrs. v. A Ramalingam reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240 . Referring to paragraph 21 of the said judgment, Mr. Choudhury submits that the guidelines for proceeding and deciding a case by the appellate court as laid down in the reported judgment had not been followed. As such, the decision of the First Appellate Court suffers from error in procedure. Mr. Choudhury further submits that as the suit path is actually an 'Ali' over which the appellants/defendants have easementary rights, the same could not have been transferred in view of the bar under Section 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 8. Mr. FU Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the First Appellate Court while rendering its decision had not erred in law or in following the procedure as required under Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Barbhuiya also submits that in so far as Section 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, the same is not applicable in the instant case, inasmuch as, concurrent findings of the courts below is that the said strip of land is a suit path and not an 'ali' over which the appellants/defendants can claim easementary right. Further, Mr. Barbhuiya submits that the applicability of Section 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act not having been urged in either of the courts below, the said plea is virtually a new plea and cannot be raised for the first time at the second appellate stage. 9. This Court in the course of proceeding have looked into the pleadings and the evidence on record. 9. This Court in the course of proceeding have looked into the pleadings and the evidence on record. In so far as the Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, there is no manner of doubt that the First Appellate Court had ascertained and identified the dispute between the parties, as would be evident from paragraph 12 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court. A perusal of the records goes to show that the courts below had duly appreciated the facts and evidence and in fact applied its mind while deciding the case on the materials on record. The independent assessment of the First Appellate Court while coming to a definite conclusion is in terms of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure. 10. In so far as the applicability of Section 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, this is a new plea raised for the first time before this Court. In any event, the question as to whether the land described in schedule II of the plaint is a suit path or 'ali' had been conclusively decided by the courts below and in that view of the matter it is not open for the appellants/defendants to now claim that the strip of land is 'ali' over which they have easementary right. Accordingly, the applicability of Section 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act does not come in the way. 11. This Court finds no substantial error or defect in the procedure followed by the courts below resulting in any error in decision. There are also no compelling reasons warranting interference of this Court. The courts below have rendered its decision on appraisal of the pleadings and evidence on record and having done so, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or question the adequacy and sufficiency of the evidence to come to a different finding contrary to the findings recorded by the courts below. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the substantial questions of law so formulated by this Court do not come to the aid of the appellants/defendants. In the absence of any substantial error or defect in the procedure followed or any perversity, the decisions of the courts below do not warrant interference of this Court. 13. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the substantial questions of law so formulated by this Court do not come to the aid of the appellants/defendants. In the absence of any substantial error or defect in the procedure followed or any perversity, the decisions of the courts below do not warrant interference of this Court. 13. In view of the above, the substantial questions of law stand answered and accordingly, this second appeal stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the appropriate court below forthwith.