JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal against a confirming judgment. 2. The suit land is covered by Patta No. 85/607/IW comprising CS Dag No. 4153 extending to an area of 0.05 acre located at Sega Lambi Konjeng Hazari Leikai of Sagolband Vilage, Imphal. The suit land was purchased by the defendant No. 1, Yumnam Kanhai Singh(for short Y. Kanhai Singh) and his grandson, Thingujam Maimu Singh(for short Maimu Singh), from the admitted owner Thokchom Tonubabu Singh(for short Th. Tonubabu Singh) under registered Sale Deed dated 6.3.1978. Thereafter, the said Maimu Singh purchased the eastern half of the suit land, which was the share of Y. Kanhai Singh, after dividing the suit land into two-halves from East to West, under a registered Sale Deed dated 7.8.1978. The said Maimu Singh sold the suit land to the plaintiff Nongmaithem Ongbi Chaobi Devi (for short Chaobi Devi) along with the house constructed by him on the suit land by registered Sale Deed dated 5.3.1982. Since the defendants were in possession of the suit land, the Suit was filed for recovery of possession and ejection of the defendants and their privies as well as means of profits/damages for wrongful occupation of the suit land along with the said house. 3.1. Defendants/respondents contested the Suit by filing a common written statement. According to the defendants/respondents the suit land had been purchased from Th. Tonubabu Singh by the defendant No. 1 with his grandson but in the name of Maimu Singh and Y. Kanhai Singh. Therefore, Th. Maimu Singh was a Benamidar whereas the real owner was Y. Kanhai Singh who had paid for purchasing the land. The further case of the defendants/respondents is that Y. Kanhai Singh never sold any portion of his land to any one including Maimu Singh and he had not executed any Sale Deed in respect of the suit land in favour of Maimu Singh. Therefore, Maimu Singh had no saleable right to sale any portion of the suit land to the plaintiffs. It was, therefore, pleaded that the Sale Deed executed by Maimu Singh on 5.3.1982 in favour of the plaintiffs is a forged one and without any saleable right. 3.2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed 14 issues and on analysis of the evidence, dismissed the Suit. It was, therefore, pleaded that the Sale Deed executed by Maimu Singh on 5.3.1982 in favour of the plaintiffs is a forged one and without any saleable right. 3.2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed 14 issues and on analysis of the evidence, dismissed the Suit. The appellants, therefore, preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge(Fast Track Court), Manipur East. 3.3. The Appellate Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned order but the Trial Court in relation to issues 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 &13 came to a conclusion that the defendants' right for actual physical possession ought to have been considered and decided by the Trial Court with reference to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 3.4. So far as issues 2 and 3 are concerned, the Appellate Court did not disturb the findings of the Trial Court. In the concluding part of the judgment, following order was passed: "Because of my decisions on issues No. 2 and 3 above, I am of the view that the reliefs granted by the learned trial court shall be subject to my said decisions. In the result, it is ordered and decreed that the impugned decree and judgment is maintained, subject to the condition that learned trial court must enquire into, determine and decide the rights of the appellants in respect of the suit land and suit house within the purview of what "a person is said to have notice" of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when but for willful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it" along with the Explanations I to III as given in S. 3 of the T.P. Act, 1882 at the time of the execution of the decree." 4. At the time of disposal of the second appeal, following substantial question of law was framed by this Court: "Whether the portion of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court directing the trial court to enquire into, determine and decided the rights of the appellants/defendants No. 2 to 5 in respect of the suit land and suit house within the purview of Section 3 of T.P. Act, 1882 along with explanation No. I to III is sustainable in the eye of law while maintaining the judgment and decree of the trial court." 5. With regards to the above substantial question of law, Mr. A. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. N. Jotendro Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that it is a fit case which should be remitted back to the Trial Court to formulate an issue with regard to the applicability of Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which the Appellate Court should have done having come to the conclusion that the defendants' right for actual physical possession ought to have been considered by the Trial Court with reference to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5.1. On consideration of the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Court, I am also of the view that if applicability of Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act has to be gone into, the Appellate Court should have remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for framing an additional issue and decide the Suit afresh. Instead, the Appellate Court in the operating portion of the judgment directed that this issue shall be decided in the execution case that may be filed for execution of the decree. The Suit having been dismissed by the Trial Court and the appellate court having confirmed the decree, there was no question of filing any execution case and moreover the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and decide an issue which was never raised and considered by the Trial Court. Such direction of the lower Appellate Court clearly establishes non-application of mind and lack of knowledge on the part of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East. 5.2. Such direction of the lower Appellate Court clearly establishes non-application of mind and lack of knowledge on the part of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East. 5.2. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned judgment and order and remit the matter back to the Trial Court to frame an additional issue with regard to the applicability of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, allow the parties to adduce further evidence if required and decide the Suit afresh. The Trial Court shall keep in mind that it is not an open remand and the Court is required to only consider the additional issue and decide the Suit afresh. The Trial Court is further directed to frame the additional issue and dispose of the Suit within six months from the date communication of this order. The Lower Court Records be sent back to the trial court immediately.