JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. S.G. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Konwar, the learned Standing Counsel for Elementary Education. 2. The present plaintiff/appellant preferred Title Suit No. 30/2012 for declaration and injunction against the defendants/respondents. It is with respect to a declaration sought for by the plaintiff/appellant that the Teteliguri M.E. School 65/68 No. Grant is the only recognised and the Government approved school. The facts pleaded in the plaint is that in the year 1985 Teteliguri M.E. School was established at village Dongibil. The defendant/respondent No. 6 was the Headmaster and few other teachers were appointed in the school. After establishment of the school, the government i.e. defendant/respondent No. 1 granted temporary permission to run the school by putting certain criteria with regard to appointment of the headmaster. The plaintiff/appellant was appointed in place of the defendant/respondent No. 6 who was the senior most founder teacher of the school. The said school was established in the compound of 449, Solmari L.P. School and since then the school had been running till 2004. Due to flood, the same was shifted to Teteliguri Idgah for 2 (two) years. Thereafter, the school was again shifted to the land of Najibur Rahman in the month of February, 2009. The school thereafter was finally established in the 65/68 No. Grant village covered by Dag No. 200, Periodic Patta No. 3. The said school has been receiving financial assistance from Assam Sarba Siksha through Assam Gramin Vikas Bank. The defendant/respondent No. 4 on 13.08.2010 submitted one report showing that in addition to the school of the plaintiff/appellant there was another breakaway school. The plaintiff/appellant was appointed as the headmaster of the said school on 15.12.2009. The defendant/respondent No. 6 in collusion with the defendants/respondents No. 3 and 4 tried to divert the financial assistance given to the plaintiff/appellant school to the newly established breakaway school. On the basis of a writ petition a direction was given to enquire the matter by the defendant/respondent No. 2 who reported that both the schools were running without fulfilling the norms for providing financial assistance and as such, no financial assistance could be given to the said schools. However, a financial assistance was released to the school in which defendant/respondent No. 6 was working as the headmaster. However, a financial assistance was released to the school in which defendant/respondent No. 6 was working as the headmaster. It is the fact pleaded further in the plaint that the defendant/respondent No. 6 was serving the school of the plaintiff/appellant till the year 2004 whereafter the defendant/respondent No. 6 started a new school in the name of Teteliguri M.E. School along with some other teachers and constituted a committee headed by defendant/respondent No. 6. On 27.03.2010, the defendant/respondent No. 6 and other teachers agreed to continue their services in the school in which the plaintiff/appellant was working i.e. the school standing on the land covered under Grant No. 65/68. However, the defendant/respondent No. 6 and other teachers failed to join and accordingly, running the breakaway school and refused to return the register and documents taken by the defendant/respondent No. 6. Accordingly, the dispute was agitated before the Gauhati High Court vide Writ Petition (C) No. 522/2012 by the plaintiff/appellant and the High Court directed the parties to establish their right in a regularly instituted civil suit. Accordingly, the suit has been filed for a declaration that the plaintiff/appellant school be declared as original and entitled to get financial benefits payable to the school with a further prayer of permanent injunction. 3. The defendants/respondents No. 5 and 6 contested the suit by filing written statement. It is stated in the written statement that the Teteliguri M.E. School at Dongibil was established in the year 1986 and the appointment of the plaintiff/appellant approved provisionally by the authority. The said order of appointment of plaintiff/appellant was directed to be cancelled vide order dated 24.07.2008. Thereafter, the Managing Committee of the Teteliguri M.E. School appointed the defendant/respondent No. 6 as the headmaster of the said school. The same was provisionally approved by the defendant/respondent No. 4. On 30.08.2008, the defendant/respondent No. 4 cancelled the appointment of the plaintiff/appellant and appointed one Hemaprabha Gogoi, the senior most Assistant Teacher as the Headmaster of the school and a public meeting was also called for. The said meeting was held on 15.11.2008 and the School Managing Committee (for short, ‘SMC’) appointed the defendant/respondent No. 6 as the Headmaster of the school on 04.01.2009. The said meeting was held on 15.11.2008 and the School Managing Committee (for short, ‘SMC’) appointed the defendant/respondent No. 6 as the Headmaster of the school on 04.01.2009. On 30.08.2008, the plaintiff/appellant stopped coming to the school and established another school by the same name as Teteliguri M.E. School and as such, it is claimed that the school of the defendant/respondent No. 6 is not a breakaway school, inasmuch as, the said school along with 12 others schools were allowed financial assistance by the Government of Assam. There is no school in the Grant No. 65/68. The defendant/respondent No. 6 and other teachers discussed for unification of the school but never consented to join in the school of the plaintiff/appellant. The DISE Code is in the name of the school of the defendant/respondent NO. 6 and financial assistance were also received by the said school since the year 2007-08. It is submitted that the school of the defendant/respondent No. 6 is the original recognised and approved school and the defendant/respondent No. 6 sought for a counter claim to decree for declaration that Teteliguri M.E. School is entitled to receive the financial assistance from the Government of Assam. The defendant/respondent No. 3 filed the written statement on behalf of the rest of the defendants/respondents and pleaded that the school where the plaintiff/appellant is working as headmaster is a newly established school i.e. 65/68 No. Grant at Dongibil. The SMC of the newly established Teteliguri M.E. School 65/68 No. Grant has no approval by the Government. The appointment of the plaintiff/appellant as Headmaster of the earlier school was challenged by the defendant/respondent No. 6 and the High Court cancelled the order dated 28.11.2005 and allowed the SMC to take decision. Thereafter, the original school Teteliguri M.E. School was split into two schools. One is standing on the land covered by patta No. 15 and 26 under defendant/respondent No. 6 and the other one shifted to the land covered by Dag No. 52 of 65/68 No. Grant and headed by the plaintiff/appellant. As per the record, the defendant/respondent No. 6 and other teachers are the founder teachers of the original Teteliguri M.E. School. The SMC of the plaintiff/appellant school has not been approved by the authority. It is further submitted that the Teteliguri M.E. School under defendant/respondent No. 6 is the original school. 4. As per the record, the defendant/respondent No. 6 and other teachers are the founder teachers of the original Teteliguri M.E. School. The SMC of the plaintiff/appellant school has not been approved by the authority. It is further submitted that the Teteliguri M.E. School under defendant/respondent No. 6 is the original school. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- 1. Whether there is cause of action in the suit? 2. Whether or not the suit is bad for necessary party? 3. Whether or not, Teteliguri M.E. School situated at 65/68 No. grant was established in 1986 approved and recognised by the Government/defendant No. 1? 4. Whether or not, Teteliguri M.E. School situated at Dangibil run under defendant No. –5 & 6 was established in 1986 approved and recognised by the Government/defendant No. 1? 5. Whether or not the plaintiff/head master and SMC of the school 65/68 No – Grant has locus standi right to file the suit? 6. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the decree and/or relief as prayed for? 7. Whether the Teteliguri M.E. School of 65/68 no. Grant is break away or Dongibil is break away of the original school? 8. Whether or not the defendant No-5 & 6 are entitled to the decree and/or reliefs as they prayed for in the counter claim? 9. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? 5. The parties to the suit adduced evidence and on the basis of the said evidence and the documents exhibited, the learned trial court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim of the defendant/respondent No. 6. 6. The plaintiff/appellant filed Title Appeal No. 23/2015 on 28.09.2015 thereby challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Lakhimpur in Title Suit No. 30/2012 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. The said first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 07.10.2016 dismissed the said title appeal No. 23/2015. 7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in title appeal No. 23/2015. The said second appeal is taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in title appeal No. 23/2015. The said second appeal is taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The first appellate court upheld the findings arrived at by the trial court in all issues. While deciding issues No. 3 and 5, the courts below came to the finding that the plaintiff/appellant in his evidence as PW 1 admitted that his appointment to Teteliguri M.E. School was cancelled by the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO). He was not reappointed thereafter. He admitted that after cancellation of his appointment, he has not filed any appeal against it. From the Exhibit-6, the appointment letter of plaintiff/appellant, he admitted that he joined the school on 27.03.1995 in which school the defendant/respondent No. 6 along with other teachers were also working. He deposed that till 2008 both the schools were joined. In the DISE Code, the name of the Teteliguri M.E. School is standing. The rest of the witnesses of the plaintiff side supported the case/defence raised by the respondents in the written statement. 9. PW 3, one Bhimbahadur Ray admitted the defendant/respondent No. 6 was the Headmaster of the Teteliguri M.E. School in the year 1985-86. He stated that there are two schools as of now and the names of the schools are Teteliguri M.E. School and Teteliguri 65/68 No. Grant M.E. School. The latter school was established by the plaintiff/appellant. He stated that in the year 1986 the name of the school was Teteliguri M.E. School and at that relevant point of time “65/68 No. Grant” was not there in the name of the school. 10. PW 4, Md. Saruddin Ahmed, deposed that Teteliguri M.E. School was established in the year 1986 near 449, Solmari L.P. School. He further deposed that in the year 2010, a public meeting was held to unite both the schools but ended without solution. The proceeding register of SMC of Teteliguri M.E. School was exhibited as Exhibit-A and nowhere in the said proceeding register, the name of the school has been shown as Teteliguri 65/68 No. Grant M.E. School. The said name was introduced from the year 2009. The proceeding register of SMC of Teteliguri M.E. School was exhibited as Exhibit-A and nowhere in the said proceeding register, the name of the school has been shown as Teteliguri 65/68 No. Grant M.E. School. The said name was introduced from the year 2009. He supported the fact that in the year 2009, the financial aid was granted to Teteliguri M.E. School. 11. Finally, after discussing the various evidence on record, the said two issues were decided against the plaintiff/appellant. Thereafter taking up the issue No. 4, the courts below took up the admitted facts from the evidence of the witnesses of both the parties and held that as the plaintiff/appellant failed to show any papers relating to his reappointment as the Headmaster of the Teteliguri M.E. School and without examining any official witness to that effect, it was concluded that the defendant/respondent No. 6 was the founder Headmaster of the Teteliguri M.E. School and he has been involved with the institution from the beginning and all the witnesses stated that the said defendant/respondent No. 6 has been serving in the Teteliguri M.E. School. As such, the Teteliguri M.E. School situated at Dongibil under defendants/respondents No. 5 and 6 was established in the year 1986 and approved and recognised by the Government of Assam i.e. defendant/respondent No. 1. Accordingly, both the courts below granted the relief in favour of the counter claim. 12. From the discussions made herein above, it transpires that the dispute in the suit is totally based on documentary piece of evidence. Such documents are already on record and if the contents of the said documents are taken together with the oral piece of evidence, it clearly goes to show that both the courts below have rightly decided the issues involved and there is no dispute in that regard. To the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff/appellant be permitted to adduce further evidence, the same cannot be granted, inasmuch as, this court finds that there are no such ground within the parameters of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to allow the plaintiff/appellant to adduce further additional evidence relevant to the issues involved in the suit. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission. 13. The second appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.