H.L.Agrawal, J.

1. This second appeal is by the defendants first party. The plaintiff instituted a title suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to 1 Katha of land appertaining to plot Nos. 6. 6/2040 and 6/2041, under Khata No. 310, situate in village Dumri, Police Station Mohiuddin Nagar, in the old district of Darbhanga, fully described in Schedule 2 of the plaint

2. The plaintiffs case was that one Sohan Das was the recorded tenant of Khata No. 310 of village Dumri. He sold one Katha appertaining to plot Nos. 6, 6/2040 and 6/2041 by a registered deed of sale dated 9-10-1924 to one Ramsaran Das. Subsequently, the heir of Ram-saran Das, who is defendant second party, sold the suit land to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 27-8-1960 (Ext. 2/d). It is alleged that defendants first party forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land on the 15th Chait, 1378 Fasli. The present suit was therefore, instituted.

3. The plea of the defendants 1st party, who contested the suit, was that the land in question was recorded in the names of Tokan and Bunni and Sohan Das was a mortgagee. The mortgage was redeemed by the recorded tenants Tokan and Bunni and therefore, Sohan Das has no right to execute the sale deed on 9-10-1924 in favour of Ramsaran Das, and, as such, the plaintiff did not acquire any title by virtue of his purchase from the heir of Ramsaran Das. The story of pos-session and dispossession set UP by the plaintiff was also denied and it was asserted that the aforesaid recorded tenants Tokan and Bunni and thereafter their descendants were in possession of the land of Khata No. 310 throughout. In 1930 four Khatas of land under Khata No. 310. including the Schedule 2 land, was taken settlement of by defendant No. 1 from the sons of Tokan and Bunni. namely, Isser and Jhari at an annual rental of Rs. 4/- and he constructed a house upon a Portion of the same and planted several trees and was coming on in possession of the suit land for more than twelve years by virtue of the said settlement

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit with the findings that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was not legal, the plaintiff did not acquire any title thereunder and that the plaintiff never came in possession of the suit land. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff, wherein he made an application under Order 41. Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for admitting two sale deeds by way of additional evidence: one executed by the recorded tenants in favour of Sohan Das and the other executed by Sohan Das in favour of Ramsaran Das, in order to prove the title of the plaintiff to the suit land. The lower appellate Court by an order dated 19-8-1968 allowed the prayer for taking the aforesaid two sale deeds as additional evidence and directed the trial Court to take such, documents in evidence after, giving reasonable opportunity to the defendants respondents to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if any, and thereafter send back the record to it. Against the aforesaid order dated 19-8-1968 the defendants first party filed Civil Revision No. 1025 of 1968 before this Court and B. D. Sinsh. J., on a consideration of the various authorities cited before him dismissed the said revision on the 26th September, 1969, holding that "the order passed by the lower appellate Court directing to take additional evidence will come under phrase any other substantial cause in Sub-clause (c) of Clause (c) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of the Code, and as such the order of the learned Subordinate Judge has got to be upheld". The trial Court, accordingly, took the two sale deeds into additional evidence and sent back the record to the lower appellate Court. On the basis of these two sale deeds, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the recorded tenants Tokhan and Bunni had sold away the land oil khata No. 310 to Sohan Das and, therefore, the plaintiff had acquired a valid title under his sale deed E