JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. This Second Appeal at the instance of the defendant has been preferred challenging the first appellate judgment and decree of reversal. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff could not establish his right, title and interest over the suit land and on appeal the trial Court judgment has been reversed. 2. The original plaintiff, late Bhadreswar Saikia as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No.72/1998 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1 at Jorhat on 25.11.1998 stating that suit land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 10 Lechas covered by old Patta No.2 and new Patta No.3 and old Dag No.62 and new Dag No.143 and land measuring 3 Bigha 4 Katha 5 Lechas covered by old Patta No.2 and new Patta No.4 and old Dag No.58 and new Dag No.141 originally belonged to Bibijan Tea Estate and the same was gifted in favour of his father Late Bhadreswar Saikia by the then manager of the Tea Estate on execution of a registered deed of gift. After death Bhadreswar Saikia whole of his immoveable properties devolved on his four sons, namely, Chakraswar Saikia, Trailakya Nath Saikia, Nareswar Saikia and the plaintiff Bhubaneswar Saikia and thereupon they held a family settlement among themselves on 15.03.1975. Pursuant to the family settlement the suit land described in the schedule to the plaint fell in the exclusive share of the plaintiff which he was enjoying through a ploughman, named Baijnath alias Baijlal. After death of Baijlal the land was being looked after by his brother Trailakya Nath Saikia during which time the defendant trespassed into the land on 16.09.1986. The plaintiff instituted a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in view of apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquility arising from such trespass and Misc. Case No.500/86 was registered thereby. The land was initially kept under attachment under Section 146 Cr.P.C. but subsequently by order dated 26.10.1995 the Executive Magistrate declared possession of the defendants over the suit land. Situated thus, plaintiff did not had any other alternative but to institute the suit praying for a decree declaring that he has right, title and interest with respect to the suit land and that he is entitled to recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants. A prayer was also made for mandatory injunction as well as permanent injunction as a consequential relief. 3. A prayer was also made for mandatory injunction as well as permanent injunction as a consequential relief. 3. On being summoned the defendant appeared and submitted written statement on 04.08.1999 denying the case of the plaintiff in entirety. The defendant alleged that the suit land was not the paternal property of the plaintiff. There was no gift whatsoever and that any gift even if made by manager of a tea estate would not amount to transfer of any title in favour of the donee. The defendant claimed to be in possession of the suit land since 1951 from the time of his father. He even went to the extent of saying that he was born in the dwelling house situated on the suit land and thus the very story of trespass in the year 1986 was false. He mentioned that in the proceeding before the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the fact as to possession of the suit land by his father Bhudna Kalindi was acknowledged and this is why the Executive Magistrate declared possession of the defendant over the suit land. The defendant prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed 10 issues in all. The issues are quoted below for ready reference :- "1. Whether there is cause of action for this suit? 2. Whether the suit land is the parental property of the plaintiff? 3. Whether the suit land has been under the plaintiff’s possession since long? 4. Whether the suit land falls under the Gift land measuring 10 Bighas 1 Katha which was gifted by the then Manager of the Bibijan Tea estate on June 1953 by executing a registered deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff’s father? 5. Whether the suit land falls in the share of the plaintiff by a family settlement dated 15.3.76? 6. Whether the suit land was acquired by Govt. of Assam as ceiling surplus land? 7. Whether the suit is hit by the principles of the law of adverse possession? 8. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 10. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?" 5. of Assam as ceiling surplus land? 7. Whether the suit is hit by the principles of the law of adverse possession? 8. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 10. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?" 5. It would appear from above that the learned trial Court framed too many issues and Issues No.2, 4, 5 and 8 dealt with the same question. Be that as it may, plaintiff examined himself and three other witnesses and exhibited as many four documents to prove his case. The defendant, on the other hand, examined five witnesses but did not adduce any document. Ext-1 is the registered deed of gift in original executed in favour of plaintiff’s father on 15.09.1953. Exts-2 and 3 are katcha pattas (in original), Ext-5 series are revenue paying receipts and Ext-4 is the deed of family settlement. Upon consideration of the evidence led by the parties the learned trial Court took up Issue No.4 for decision before any other issues. While discussing this issue the learned trial Court was of the opinion that Dag No. mentioned in gift deed Ext-1 may be similar to that of the suit land but there was discrepancy in identity of the land. Dag No.62 of the plaint does not tally with the corresponding area of land under Dag No.62-A of the registered gift deed. Similarly, area of land mentioned in Dag No.58 of the suit land does not tally with the area of land shown under a corresponding Dag No.58-B of the registered gift deed. Total area of the suit land as stated by the plaintiff under the respective Dags if added would come to 5 BIgha 15 Lechas and not 3 Bigha 4 Katha 5 Lechas as mentioned therein and thus there are major discrepancies for which the learned trial Court felt that the suit land did not fall under gifted land measuring 10 Bigha 1 Katha which was gifted by the then manager of Bibijan Tea Estate on 15.06.1953 by executing a registered deed. Accordingly, Issue No.4 was decided in the negative and against the plaintiff. Accordingly, Issue No.4 was decided in the negative and against the plaintiff. On the basis of the findings in regard to Issue No.4 the learned trial Court decided Issues No.2 and 8 as well against the plaintiff and consequently the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in entirety by judgment and decree dated 30.04.2003. 6. The unsuccessful plaintiff thereafter preferred Title Appeal No.13/2003 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jorhat and the learned First Appellate Court after hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record allowed the appeal by his judgment and decree dated 13.07.2005 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In so doing, the learned First Appellate Court framed three points for determination and the same are as follows :- "(1) Whether the plaintiff has subsisting title at the time of institution of the suit? (2) Whether the defendants acquired title over the suit land by right of adverse possession? (3) Whether the learned trial Court has wrongly decided the suit against the plaintiff/appellant?" 7. Coming to the first point for determination, the learned First Appellate Court proceeded to decide as to whether the plaintiff could establish right, title and interest over the suit land by adducing the appropriate evidence. Although defendant took a plea that Ext-1 gift deed was neither executed in favour of the plaintiff nor did the executor of the deed had any authority to make the gift deed as alleged but the learned First Appellate Court did not enter into that question on the ground that defendant being a third party has no authority to challenge the correctness or otherwise of execution of the gift deed. The learned First Appellate Court thereafter proceeded directly to decide as to whether the suit land was covered by the gift deed and in doing so considered the findings of the learned trial Court as a whole. Since the trial Court held that on joint reading of Exts-1, 2 and 3 that Dags No. and Pattas No. of Exts-1, 2 and 3 are similar with those of the land mentioned in the gift deed but according to the learned First Appellate Court the findings of the learned trial Court are self contradictory. Since the trial Court held that on joint reading of Exts-1, 2 and 3 that Dags No. and Pattas No. of Exts-1, 2 and 3 are similar with those of the land mentioned in the gift deed but according to the learned First Appellate Court the findings of the learned trial Court are self contradictory. The learned First Appellate Court perused the paragraph 1 of the plaint where name of the mouza and village is disclosed and thereupon was of the view that the learned trial Court was not correct in holding that there was no disclosure of Dag No. and Patta No. in the schedule to the plaint but the learned First Appellate Court was of the view that Dags No. and Pattas No. appearing in Ext-1 were subsequently changed and Pattas were issued in the name of the plaintiff’s father with new Dag No. and Patta No. Presuming that the Dags No. and Pattas No. mentioned in Ext-1 are the same as that of Ext- 2 and 3 the learned First Appellate Court was of the view that the suit land is covered by gift deed Ext-1 and consequently Ext-4 partition deed was also considered in favour of the plaintiff and held that the land mentioned in Ext-4 is the suit land and it is the land which was conveyed by Bibijan Tea Estate vide Ext-1 (gift deed). But the question whether the findings of the learned First Appellate Court in this regard that Dags No. and Pattas No. mentioned din Ext-1 were subsequently changed and this is how Exts-2 and 3 attracted the suit land, is based on any material, whatsoever, on record. If it is the case of the plaintiff that because of efflux of time and subsequent re-settlement operations the Dag No. and Patta No. appearing in Ext-1 underwent changes, in that event, it was the burden of the plaintiff to prove so by adducing proper evidence in this regard. No such evidence is available on record to hold that in course of re-settlement operation the Dags No. and Pattas No. appearing in Ext-1 were re-surveyed as the Dag No. and Patta No. in Exts-2 and 3. Moreover, Exts-2 and 3 are katcha pattas. Nowhere has it been mentioned that these pattas were made final in any point of time. No such evidence is available on record to hold that in course of re-settlement operation the Dags No. and Pattas No. appearing in Ext-1 were re-surveyed as the Dag No. and Patta No. in Exts-2 and 3. Moreover, Exts-2 and 3 are katcha pattas. Nowhere has it been mentioned that these pattas were made final in any point of time. The Dag No. and Patta No. mentioned in Ext-4 are at variance with Dag No. Patta No. mentioned in Ext-1 and thus there is a huge gap between the Dag No. and Patta No. mentioned in the original document of title, namely, the Ext-1 gift deed and the suit land. The finding of the learned First Appellate Court that there were change of Dag No. and Patta No. and Ext-1 is the deed which covers the suit land is not supported by materials available on record. Having held so the learned First Appellate Court thereafter came to the question of adverse possession raised by the defendant and was of the view that defendant could not prove adverse possession by leading appropriate evidence. These findings of the learned First Appellate Court leading to decree of the suit in question have been called in question in the present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court admitted the Second Appeal on 02.12.2005 framing the following substantial question of law :- "Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in law interpreting the exhibit No.1 executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff/respondent?" 8. I have heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. H.K. Baishya, learned counsel for the respondents. During pendency of the Second Appeal original plaintiff/sole respondent died and his legal heirs were substituted as respondents. 9. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, would argue that if the plaintiff has based his claim of title on the suit land on the basis of Ext-1 (registered gift deed), in that event, the plaintiff must succeed to prove that the gift deed does attract the suit land. 9. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, would argue that if the plaintiff has based his claim of title on the suit land on the basis of Ext-1 (registered gift deed), in that event, the plaintiff must succeed to prove that the gift deed does attract the suit land. Apparently, the Dags No. and Pattas No. mentioned in Ext-1 do not tally with that of the suit land and so the learned First Appellate Court committed error in presuming that the Dags No. and Pattas No. appearing in Ext-1 underwent subsequent changes and this is how the suit land is covered. In the absence of any specific evidence to that effect such findings of the learned First Appellate Court is perverse and so the sole substantial question of law is liable to be decided in favour of the appellant. 10. Per contra, Mr. H. K. Baishya, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that the defendant does not have any semblance of title over the suit land. Admittedly, the suit land originally belonged to Bibijan Tea Estate. While plaintiff has some semblance of title in the form of Ext-1 gift deed executed by the then manager of the Tea Estate on being authorised by the Board of Directors, the defendant failed to produce a single scrap of paper in support of their claim to the land. They merely pleaded that the defendant acquired adverse possession with respect to the suit land but in doing so they have neither disclosed the date as to when had they come in possession of the suit land and since when their possession became hostile. While setting up a case of adverse possession it is necessary to lay foundation in the written statement itself by disclosing the date of taking over possession of the suit land and the date since when such possession became hostile. Possession should not only be hostile but it should be open and to the knowledge of the original owner. Otherwise mere long possession can never be construed to be adverse possession, Mr. Baishya argued. With these submissions Mr. Baishya would pray that the Second Appeal be dismissed and the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court be upheld. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the pleadings, the depositions of the witnesses and the five documents brought on record by the plaintiff. Baishya argued. With these submissions Mr. Baishya would pray that the Second Appeal be dismissed and the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court be upheld. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the pleadings, the depositions of the witnesses and the five documents brought on record by the plaintiff. Since there is no documentary evidence on the part of the defendant the oral evidence of the five witnesses are perused. 12. It is apparent that the suit land originally belonged to Bibijan Tea Estate and that is why the land has been described to be as tea grant. Government issued special grant for cultivation of tea and perhaps since the land was not really used for special cultivation the same was sought to be gifted to the employee of the Tea Estate vide Ext-1. Ext-1 was executed on 15.06.1953 and the suit was instituted in the year 1998. The Tea Estate has not been made party and the other pattadars are also not impleaded. Of course, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is a trespasser and he does not have any semblance of title with respect to the suit land. Any of the real owners can maintain a suit against a trespasser. Now plaintiff claims to have derived title of the suit land on the basis of Ext-1. The Ext-1 is a registered gift deed. The donor is the Tea Estate which has not been made a party. Under such circumstances, the defendant who also happens to be either ex tea garden labourer or an existing tea garden labourer raised objection as to validity of the Ext-1 by saying that the then Manager had no authority to execute the gift deed and so the gift deed itself is void. An argument has also been put forward by Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant, that no attesting witnesses has been examined by the plaintiff to prove execution of the gift deed. Though it is a 30 years old document once execution has been questioned by the person in occupation of the land, the plaintiff was either duty bound to examine any of the attesting witnesses, if alive, or otherwise to lead evidence by saying that the attesting witnesses had died in the meantime. Mr. Though it is a 30 years old document once execution has been questioned by the person in occupation of the land, the plaintiff was either duty bound to examine any of the attesting witnesses, if alive, or otherwise to lead evidence by saying that the attesting witnesses had died in the meantime. Mr. H. K. Baishya, however, submits that it is a 30 years old document and has been produced from the custody of the proper person and so its execution need not be proved in terms of provision of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even if it is accepted for the time being that there was a gift deed executed by a proper person in favour of an employee of the tea estate, namely, Bhadreswar Saikia, in that event plaintiff having claimed right, title and interest with respect to the land described in Ext-1 has to prove by preponderance of probability that the land mentioned in Ext-1 is the suit land or that it includes the suit land. Gifted land measures more than 10 bighas of land whereas the suit land measures more or less 5 bighas. Even if the suit land is a part of the gifted land, in that event it is essential to prove that suit land is covered by the gifted land. The plaintiff adduced two katcha pattas as Exts-2 and 3. I have perused the pattas. These are katcha pattas issued in the name of Bhadreswar Saikia and the original owner is the Tea Estate. Pattas, as usual, do not contain any boundary or details of the land. These pattas were not final pattas and no jamabondi has been brought on record to show that the suit land was mutated in the name of the legal heirs of the donee and in the process there was change of Dag No. and Patta No. This could have been proved only by examining concerned revenue official. The chita and the records of rights may show that a given dag and patta has been subsequently re-surveyed and renumbered as another dag and patta. In the absence of any such evidence it cannot be said that the original patta has been resurveyed as that of the suit land. Although plaintiff miserably failed to bring such evidence on record, yet, the learned First Appellate Court presumed the same and thereupon committed an error. In the absence of any such evidence it cannot be said that the original patta has been resurveyed as that of the suit land. Although plaintiff miserably failed to bring such evidence on record, yet, the learned First Appellate Court presumed the same and thereupon committed an error. The finding of the learned First Appellate Court, therefore, in this regard is perverse. 13. Mr. H. K. Baishya, learned counsel for the respondents, has highlighted that plaintiff though produced some documents to prove the semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land, defendant remained silence all along as to their acquisition of title in regard thereto. Merely by reciting in the written statement that they acquired adverse possession, was not sufficient on their part to justify their possession. Moreover, it is the defendant who raised the issue that his possession over the suit land was declared by the Executive Magistrate from the time of his grandfather with effect from 1951. But having so pleaded the defendant has not adduced any scrap of paper to show that their possession was so declared by the Executive Magistrate and that such possession was with effect from 1951. Had it been so established, in that event, the very story of alleged trespass of the suit land by the defendant could have been refuted. The defendant not having done so a question all along remains as to whether the suit land was in any point of time occupied by plaintiff leading to issuance of patta in his favour or in favour of his predecessor in interest. It is to be seen that alleged dispossession has taken place on 16.09.1986. A proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was drawn up only on 17.11.1986 i.e. two months thereafter. The Executive Magistrate declared possession of the defendant over the suit land on 26.10.1995 and three years thereafter in 1998 the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession. All these questions taken together only irresistively indicate that the full facts have not come on the board to enable the learned Courts below to arrive at a just finding. Perhaps because of this, the respondent has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court asking for leading evidence at the appellate stage. Perhaps because of this, the respondent has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court asking for leading evidence at the appellate stage. Such an application amounts to a two edged sword because it can cut both ways. Once the respondent/plaintiff files an application claiming that additional evidence at appellate stage should be permitted, he accepts the situation that evidence on record are not sufficient to justify a decree in his favour. Of course, such a prayer made by the plaintiff may be for the purpose of clarification also. Whatever that may be, the observations made herein above coupled with the fact that the plaintiff himself volunteered to file an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC to enable them to adduce evidence at appellate stage are sufficient to hold that the decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court cannot be sustained. The necessity for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage is admittedly not required by the Court and so the question also has to be seen as to whether Order 41, Rule 27 CPC application filed by the plaintiff comes under clause (bb) or not. If not, in that event, plaintiff will have to justify either clause (a) or clause (b) of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. 14. In view of the observations made herein above and more particularly in view of the fact that there is nothing on record to come to hold that Dag No. and Patta No. mentioned in Ext-1 have been renumbered as that of the suit land or Exts-2 and 3, the findings of the learned First Appellate Court in this regard is vitiated for perversity. Accordingly, the first appellate judgment and decree cannot be upheld. The sole substantial question of law is decided in favour of the appellant and against the plaintiff. 15. The Second Appeal stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the learned First Appellate Court to decide the matter afresh, if necessary, by allowing the parties to lead additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. The suit is of the year 1998 and so the learned First Appellate Court shall endeavour to dispose of the whole thing as expeditiously as possible. No order as to cost. Send down the records. Appeal allowed.