1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants. None appears on behalf of the Respondents, though they were served.

2. The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on substantial questions of law, which are framed at Serial Nos. 2,3 and 5 read as under:

“(2) The substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal is that whether the learned Judge of the Appellate Court acted in accordance with the provisions of law in framing different issues than that of the trial court and answered it correctly without any opportunity to lead evidence on the said issue.

(3) Further question of law is that whether it was necessary to review and the matter to the trial court to answer the issue framed by the appellate court or was it necessary to call for the finding on the said issue from the trial court.

(5) Another question of law is that the reliance placed on the documents produced in appeal without considering whether any appeal is produced or not treating it as final is legal.”

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has submitted that additional substantial questions of law may be framed as grounds nos.1,2 and 3, which are as under.

“(1) The substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal is that whether the learned Judge of the Appellate Court acted in accordance with the provisions of law in framing different issues than that of the trial court and answered it correctly without any opportunity to lead evidence on the said issue.

(2) Further question of law is that whether it was necessary to remand the matter to the trial court to answer the issue framed by the Appellate Court or was it necessary to call for the finding on the said issue from the Trial Court.

(3) Another question of law is that the reliance placed on the documents produced in appeal without considering whether any appeal is pending or not treating it as final is legal.”

4. Brief facts are as under:

The Appellants are the original plaintiffs and the Respondents are the original defendants (for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “the plaintiffs and the defendants”).

The dispute between the parties pertains to an area admeasuring 8 acres and 11 gunthas situated at Village Erandoli out of Gat No.372. According to the plaintiffs, there was a partition between the plaintiffs and defendants in the year 1964 and the plaintiffs given possession of 8 acres and 11 gunthas in Gat no.372 and the defendants were given possession of 5 acres, 35 gunthas from Gat No. 374. Pursuant to the implementation of the Consolidation Act, the lands in the said village were accordingly divided in various Gat nos. and the consolidation scheme was finalized and the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the said area of 8 acres and 11 gunthas for Gat No. 372 was finalized. The Plaintiffs filed a suit on 12.6.1974. In which , it was alleged that the defendants unauthorizedly was trying to obstruct their possession in respect of the said land and, therefore, they prayed for permanent injunction and alternatively for possession of the suit land.

5. The Defendants, in their written statement had contended that the consolidation scheme was not properly finalized since no statement was recorded in the consolidation scheme and as a result, the Plaintiffs had managed to obtain an entry in their names in respect of the said land. The Defendant No.1 challenged the consolidation scheme by filing an appeal under section 31A before the Deputy Director of Land Records seeking correction of the said entry. In the meantime, the Trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment and order dated 3.11.1981 and restrained the defendants from interfering or obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Court. The District Court came to the conclusion that the Trial Court had erred in deciding