ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. This appeal by the defendant-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Lohardaga in Title Appeal No. 34/94 whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1994 passed by Sub-Judge, Lohardaga in Title Suit No. 255/1986. and decreed the suit.
2. On 1.7.2004 this appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court without considering the evidences of the defendant-respondent and without giving any specific finding as to when the documents were withdrawn by the defendants and as to when the notice for production of the same was issued to him?
3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff-respondent filed Title Suit No. 255/86 for a decree of declaration of his right, title and interest over the lands described in Schedule C in the plaint. A further relief for declaration that the sale deed dated 20.9.1990 executed by Mast Ram Modi in favour of the defendant through power of attorney holder is null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff, was also sought for.
4. Plaintiffs case, in brief, is that the entire landed property shown in schedule 'A' of the plaint was owned and possessed by three persons, namely, Jibraj Poddar, Nagarmal Poddar and Amlok Chand Poddar, whose names were duly recorded in revisional survey records of right. The said recorded tenants alleged to have remained In possession over schedule 'A' land till 1982. Thereafter, Jibraj Poddar and Nagar-mal Poddar sold the entire schedule 'A' property to the plaintiff by registered deed of sale dated 12.1.1982 in which Amlok Chand Poddar consented the said sale deed. Plaintiffs case is that since the aforementioned recorded raiyats were residing outside Ranchi, they entrusted the plaintiff to look after and manage the properties including schedule 'A' property. After purchase of schedule 'A' land the plaintiff alleged to have sold 0.41 decimals of land to several persons on different dates and put them in possession of the same. Those lands have been described in schedule 'B' of the plaint. It is alleged that the purchasers got their names mutated in respect of their respective purchased lands. The remaining 29 decimals of land of schedule 'A' which has been shown in schedule 'C' still remained in possession of the plaintiff and he has been coming in possession thereof. According to the plaintiff, the dispute arose when the defendant claimed title over the suit property and tried to disturb possession of the plaintiff which resulted in initiation of 144, Cr PC proceeding subsequently converted into 145, Cr PC proceeding which remained pending in the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Lohardaga. In that proceeding the defendant claimed to have entered into an agreement with one Mast Ram Modi who, according to the plaintiff had no right title and interest over the suit property. During the pendency of the suit the defendant purchased the suit property after the death of Mast Ram Modi, from his heirs by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 20.9.1990. The said sale deed has also been challenged by the plaintiff by filing amendment petition.
5. The defendant-appellant's case, on the other hand, is that the plaintiff has no valid right, title and interest over the suit property. According to the defendant the land of revisional survey khata No. 33, plot Nos. 2376, 2377 and 2378 having an area of 680 karies corresponding to Lohardaga Municipal survey plot Nos. 864, 863 and 862 have been recorded in the name of the aforementioned three persons, namely, Nagarmal Poddar, Jibraj Poddar and Amlok Chand Poddar, residents of Nagpur and those recorded raiyats were coming in possession of the same. It is alleged by the defendant that the said three recorded raiyats finally sold the suit property to M/s. Central India Spinning Weaving and Manufacturing Company who were proprietor of the Impress Mill at Nagpur by virtue of registered sale deed dated 18.7.1935 for a valuable consideration. After purchase, the said Company came in possession of the property and the Company, in its turn, sold the suit property to Mast Ram Modi, resident of Upper Bajar, Ranchi for a valuable consideration by registered deed of sale dated 14.12.1948 and put him in possession of the same. Defendant's further case is that said Mast Ram Modi got his name mutated in the revisional survey records of right of the State of Bihar and paid rent regularly. Since Mast Ram Modi was residing in Ranchi, he entrusted the suit property to the father and elder brother of the defendant who looked after the property on his behalf. Finally Mast Ram Modi sold the entire schedule 'A' property to the defendant on a valuable consideration. An agreement to sell was duly executed and advance consideration was paid on 24.12.1982, by virtue of the said agreement to sell the defendant alleged to have taken delivery of possession of the entire suit property and, thereafter, the defendant alleged to have started construction of boundary wall which resulted in initiation of 144 and 145, Cr PC proceedings. Defendant's further case is that Nagarmal Poddar died in the year, 1964 at Nagpur and his grand son, Shanti Kumar Poddar is still residing at Nagpur. Similarly, Amlok Chand Poddar died on 17.2.1960 at Nagpur and his son, Ram Kishun Poddar is still residing there. Various other defence have been taken by the defendant in his written statement.
6. The trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication of the matter in controversy:
(i) Is the suit maintainable as framed?
(ii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and adverse possession?
(iii) Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Specific Relief Act?
(iv) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of said Mast Ram Modi; land his legal heir who are necessary party in this suit?
(v) Whether the suit is undervalued ?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay ad volerem court-fee?
(vii) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit?
(viii) Whether the plaintiff acquired valid right title and interest as well as possession over suit land on the basis of registered sale deed date 12.1.1982?
(ix) Whether the sale deed dated 12.1.1982 executed by Nagarmal Poddar and Jibraj Poddar consented by Amlok Chand Poddar is a genuine document?
(x) Whether the defendant is coming in possession over the suit land on the basis of delivery of possession given by late Mast Ram Modi in part performance of agreement of sale dated 24.12.1982 executed in favour of the defendant on receipt of advance consideration amount?
(xi) Whether the defendant has acquired valid right, title and interest as well as possession over the suit land on the basis of sale deed and deed of agreement of sale executed by Mast Ram Modi and his heirs?
(xii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration of his title over the suit land?
(xiii) Whether the sale deed dated 24.12.1982 executed by heirs of Mast Ram Modi in favour of the defendant is null and void and also inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff.?
(xiv) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?
7. On the issue of title of Nagarmal Poddar, and Jibraj Poddar the trial Court appointed Advocate Commissioner who went to Kotta and Kaithum. It is said that inspite of notice the plaintiff avoided to attend the commission. The Commissioner went to Kaithum, examined the authorities and found that the death certificate filed by the plaintiff was forged and fabricated documents. The trial Court also noticed that the Commission was also issued by the S.D.M. Lohardaga in the proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC. The Commissioner also went to Nagpur and examined the heirs of both late Nagarmal Poddar and Jibraj Poddar who corroborated that both the persons had died long long ago and the suit property belonged to them which was sold to M/s. Central India Speaning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company. The trial Court further considered all the evidences, both oral and documentary and discussed all the exhibits and recorded a finding that the death certificate produced by the plaintiff with regard to the death of Nagarmal Poddar and Jibraj Poddar were the forged and fabricated documents. The trial Court on the other hand considered the certificate filed by the defendant which was issued by the Registrar, Aayukta Birth and Death Nagar Parishad, Kotta, Rajasthan and Ad-hishashi Adhikari Nagarpalika, Kaithum Kotta, Rajasthan (Exts D and D/1). Not only that the trial Court also elaborately discussed the evidence of Laxami Chandra Sharma, the Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, Kaithum Kotta, Rajasthan, the Advocate Commissioner, Sri B.K Mishra and finally held that the suit property was recorded in the name of above mentioned three persons who sold it to Impress Mill in the year, 1935. The Impress Mill in its turn, sold the property to Mast Ram Modi in the year, 1948 and on the basis of the agreement to sell, the defendant purchased the property. Consequently the trial Court dismissed the suit.
8. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court preferred appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/94.Curiously enough the appellate -Court proceeded to decide only one issue as the important issue i.e. whether the plaintiff has acquired valid right, title and possession over the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed dated 12.1.1982. Without appreciating the evidence and without even discussing the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the parties and also without meeting the reasoning given by the trial Court the first appellate Court reversed the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and decreed the suit.
9. At the very out set I hold that the first appellate Court which is a final Court of facts, has failed to comply the mandatory provisions of Order XLI Rule 31, CPC. It is well settled that a finding of fact must be based on consideration of all the relevant documents both oral and documentary. If the first appellate Court, being the final Court of fact, while arriving at its conclusion ignores the important evidence considered by the trial Court while arriving at its finding, then the judgment of the first appellate Court cannot be sustained in law. Since the first appellate Court has failed to discharge its mandatory obligation specially while reversing the judgment of the trial Court, the matter has to be remanded back to the first appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh.
10. For the aforesaid reason, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate Court for passing fresh judgment after considering the entire materials on record and after complying the requirements of Order XLI, Rule 31, CPC.