JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs and Ms. M. Deori, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/defendants Nos. 4 to 10. 2. The predecessor of the appellants/plaintiffs late Abdul Mannan preferred Title Suit No. 28/1991 in the court of the learned Civil Judge,(Junior Division) No. 2, Karimganj for following reliefs. “1) For a decree be passed by declaration and confirming the right, title and possession of the plaintiff respectively over the land in Schedule-‘B’ below. 2) The defendant Nos. 4 and 5 be restrained permanently from entering the land of plaintiff in Schedule-‘B’ or manufacturing any collusive documents or manipulating the record of right, by prohibitory and mandatory injunction respectively. 3) The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 be directed by mandatory injunction to amend the record of right whereby maintaining the record by keeping the plaintiff’s requisite quantum of land measuring 2.95 acres in Dag No. 208 as described in Schedule-‘B’ below. 4) All the action or attempts by the principal defendants in respect of land in Schedule-‘B’ below be declared illegal and valid ab-initio. 5) Cost of the suit. 6) Any other relief or reliefs the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. Dated 1.2.91.” The basis of claim of the predecessor-in-interest over the schedule B land was mainly by way of two registered sale deeds of the year 1972 and 1986. 3. In the said plaint filed by late Abdul Mannan, the suit land was described in Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint out of schedule ‘A’ land. The predecessor-in-interests of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, as the defendant No. 4 and the present respondent No. 10, as the defendant No. 5 filed their joint written statement in the said suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant thereby raising the plea that the Title Suit No. 28/1991 is barred by the principles of res-judicata as on the same subject matter between the same parties, two different title suits namely T.S. No. 293/1987 and T.S. No. 294/1987 were adjudicated by the learned court of Munsiff at Karimganj. In the said written statement, it was admitted by the said two defendants that out of schedule ‘B’ land measuring 2.95 acres, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/appellants was the owner to the extent of 1.68 acres of land which was purchased by him by way of registered sale deed in the year 1972 from the proforma defendants. With respect to the rest of the claims, the said two defendant Nos. 4 and 5 prayed for dismissal of the suit as the registered Sale Deed of1986 of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants is a collusive one as the executants had no right, title and interest over the land so sold to him. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed the following issued “1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is barred by Res-judicata? 3. Whether the 2nd schedule land is part of 1st schedule land? 4. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 6. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to?” 5. In the trial court, both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings and also submitted various exhibits. It is pertinent to mention herein that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/plaintiffs could not exhibit the registered sale deeds of the year 1972 and 1986 on the basis of which he claimed his right title and interest over the suit land. 6. The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 16.3.1998 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants. The learned trial court took Issue No. 2 and relying on Ext. A, the judgment and decree of Title Suit No. 294/1987 came to the finding that the said Suit No. 294/1987 was instituted by the defendant No. 5 (respondent No.10) and others in respect of land covered by Khatian No. 151, Dag Nos. 208/702/250 of Hatigul Mouza. The learned trial court thereafter came to the finding that the suit land of T.S. No. 28/1991 preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/plaintiffs and the suit land covered therein is the same as that of T.S. No. 294/1987 and the patties are also same. The said T.S. No. 294/1987 was decided by the competent civil court. The learned trial court thereafter came to the finding that the suit land of T.S. No. 28/1991 preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/plaintiffs and the suit land covered therein is the same as that of T.S. No. 294/1987 and the patties are also same. The said T.S. No. 294/1987 was decided by the competent civil court. Accordingly, it was held that T.S. No. 28/1991 was barred under the principle of res-judicata. While deciding the said Issue No. 2, learned trial court came to the finding that the predecessor in interest of the present appellants as the plaintiff, failed to produce or prove the sale deeds based on which he had claimed his right, title and interest of the present suit land. 7. Thereafter the said predecessor-in- interest of the appellants preferred Title Appeal No. 5/1998 in the court of the learned (Adhoc) Additional District Judge, Karimganj challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. 8. After hearing the parties, the first appellate court vide judgment and decree, dated 14.9.2004 dismissed the Title Appeal No. 5/1998. The learned first appellate court took up the Issue No. 2, concurred with the findings of the learned trial court and came to the findings that as the decision of the Issue No. 2 decided the fate of the suit it was not necessary to decide the other issues. However, while deciding Issue No. 1, the learned first appellate court reversed the finding of the learned trial court thereby holding that there was no cause of action for filing the suit by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/appellants. While reversing the finding of the learned trial court, the first appellate court came to the findings that the prayer of the appellants was for a direction questioning the validity and legality of the order of settlement related to the suit land. Accordingly, under section 154 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation 1886, the suit is barred by law and the Civil Court cannot decide the validity of order of settlement of land made by the revenue authority. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 14.9.2004, passed in Title Appeal No. 5/1998 by the learned court of the (Adhoc) Additional District Judge, the legal heirs of the original sole plaintiff had preferred this second appeal which was admitted on 20.8.2008 on the following substantial question of law: “1. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 14.9.2004, passed in Title Appeal No. 5/1998 by the learned court of the (Adhoc) Additional District Judge, the legal heirs of the original sole plaintiff had preferred this second appeal which was admitted on 20.8.2008 on the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants can be dismissed on the ground of res-judicata in view of dismissal of the suit being Title Suit No. 294/1997 filed by the present respondent No.10 as plaintiff praying for a decree for right, title and interest over the suit land? 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants being suit for declaration of right title and interest can be held to be barred under Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886?” 10. Mr. Dhar submits that T.S. 294/1987 instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent Nos. 4 to 7 against the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants was in respect of the same land and the T.S. No. 294/87 was subsequently dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2002 on being remanded by the first appellate court. The earlier judgment and decree was set aside and remanded back to the learned trial court by the first appellate court for deciding the T.S. No. 294/1987 afresh, subject to issuance of Amin Commission. 11. Mr. Dhar further submits that both the courts below failed to consider the fact that the sale deeds on the basis of which the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had claimed right, title and interest over the suit land were exhibited in T.S. No. 294/1987 and though it was mentioned in the evidence by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, the learned court below ought to have considered the said piece of evidence and at least permitted the said plaintiff to call for the records of T.S. No. 294/1987 in order to adjudicate the dispute between the parties to the suit. Having not done so, both the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside and at least permit the appellants to adduce and prove the said sale deed on the basis of which the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants have claimed right, title and interest over the suit land. 12. Mr. Having not done so, both the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside and at least permit the appellants to adduce and prove the said sale deed on the basis of which the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants have claimed right, title and interest over the suit land. 12. Mr. Dhar further submits that the learned first appellate court was not correct in reversing the finding of the learned trial court while deciding Issue No. 1. He submits that as apparent from the plaint, the original plaintiff had sought for his declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land alongwith the confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction. In addition to that, as a consequential relief the plaintiff also sought for a precept to the concerned revenue authority to mutate the name of the plaintiff on the basis of the title he sought for, to be declared by the civil court and as such under no circumstances, the suit could be held to be not maintainable in the civil court on the basis of the provision of Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886. 13. Mr. Dhar also submits that a separate application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is preferred in the second appeal with a prayer to obtain certified copies of the registered sale deed No. 1499 dated 8.4.1972 and registered sale deed No. 972 dated 17.3.1986 executed by the proforma defendant, namely Gojendra Mohan Dutta in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants from the record of the T.S. No. 294/1987 and to produce the judgment and order dated 27.2.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2 Karimganj in T.S. No. 294/1987 thereby dismissing the said title suit filed by the predecessor-in interest of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 14. Ms. Deori submits that she is not aware with regard to development after the T.S. No. 294/1987 was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2002. 15. Considered the submission of the learned counsels. The findings of the courts below so far Issue No. 2 is concerned itself shows that the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant had exhibited the sale deeds on the basis of which he claimed title over the suit land in order to prove his pleading taken up in his written statement therein T.S. No. 294/1987. The findings of the courts below so far Issue No. 2 is concerned itself shows that the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant had exhibited the sale deeds on the basis of which he claimed title over the suit land in order to prove his pleading taken up in his written statement therein T.S. No. 294/1987. Also perused the evidence of the plaintiff Abdul Mannan, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellats as PW 1 in T.S. No. 28/1991 from the judgment and decree of which the present second appeal is being preferred by the present appellants. 16. In the cross-examination, the said plaintiff Abdul Mannan had deposed that the sale deeds were submitted in T.S. No. 293/1987 and T.S. No. 294/1987 but subject matter of the two suits are of the same in nature which is subject matter of T.S. No. 28/1991. Also on perusal of the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, the ground shown in the said petition for allowing additional evidence seems to be cogent one. 17. It is submitted that T.S. No. 294/1987 had been dismissed and if it is so, then Issue No. 2 decided by the court below is to be decided afresh in view of the changed circumstances. The finding of the first appellate court with regard to Issue No. 1 also cannot be held to be correct. In the circumstances, this court while answering both the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellants accordingly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court and remand the same for passing fresh judgment by allowing the present appellants to adduce additional evidence in terms of the present petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC confining the said evidence to the extent of proving the two sale deeds i.e. one of the year 1972 and other of the year 1986. While deciding the first appeal by the first appellate court due consideration be given to decide Issue No. 2 even by calling for the records required which the first appellate court considers material for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 18. Accordingly, this second appeal is allowed. While deciding the first appeal by the first appellate court due consideration be given to decide Issue No. 2 even by calling for the records required which the first appellate court considers material for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 18. Accordingly, this second appeal is allowed. The first appellate court on receipt of the LCR in the present appeal, notice be served on the parties to the suit thereby fixing the date for appearance and thereafter shall proceed to dispose of the appeal as per the law. 19. Send back the LCR. 20. No costs.