The court emphasized the importance of timely raising objections and the limited scope of entertaining new pleas of fact at the second appeal stage.

Vijayendra Nath, J. - Heard Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals and also Mr. Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in these appeals.

2. Defendant is the appellant against a common JUDGMENT : and decree dated 16.01.2010 passed in T.A.No. 08/91 and T.A.No. 09/91 by Additional District and Sessions Judge F.T.C. V, Buxar dismissing the appeals and affirming the JUDGMENT : and decree dated 23.02.1991 of eviction passed in T.S.No. 31/80/08/90 and T.S.No. 32/80/09/90 by Additional Munsif I, Buxar.

3. The respondent, as plaintiff, had filed the aforesaid two suits for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises in Municipal Plot no. 280 in T.S.No. 31/80 and Municipal Plot No. 265(part) in T.S.No. 32/80. Both the suits were decreed, and T.A.No. 08/91 was filed against the JUDGMENT : and decree of T.S.No. 31/80 and T.A.No. 09/91 was filed against the JUDGMENT : and decree of T.S.No. 32/80. After the dismissal of the two appeals by common JUDGMENT :, the S.A.No. 94/10 and S.A.No. 95/10 have been filed.

4. In ORDER :to appreciate the issues arising between the parties, the factual background which is similar in both the appeals, in short, is as follows:-

The plaintiff a registered body under the Company Act claimed to have purchased the suit premises from the ex-landlord Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh of Dumraon Estate. It is the case of the plaintiff that original defendant (since deceased, through L.R.) had been inducted as tenant in the suit premises on monthly rental but he subsequently defaulted in payment of rent and even on demand did not pay the same. It was also case of the plaintiff that the suit premises was very old and required construction and the plaintiff was in need of the suit premises for its own purposes and hence the suits for eviction were filed.

The defendant in the written statement contested the claim of the plaintiff and asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant had pleaded that M.S.Plot No. 265 originally belonged to Sital Ram who orally sold the same to the father of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 25/- and delivered possession. After the purchase, the father of the defendant amalgamated the same with his own plot no.280 which was contiguous to the said plot and thereafter, pucca house was constructed thereupon. Thus, the defendant had set up his own title over the suit premises in both the suits.

5. It would be relevant to mention here that initially the plaintiff had prayed for the relief of eviction alone alongwith the arrears of rent but later on the plaintiff added the relief for adjudication of title also. The trial court after considering the evidence of the parties decreed the suits. However, in appeal, the appellate court set aside the JUDGMENT : and decree of the trial court and remanded the matter back for determination of the question of valuation of the suits. The plaintiff challenged the ORDER :s of remand in both the cases before this Court in M.A.No. 336/02 & 340/02 which were allowed by ORDER :dated 29.07.2004 by this Court by which the ORDER :s of remand were set aside and the appellate court below was directed to dispose of the two appeals on merits with further direction to dispose of the issue of valuation as well alongwith the disposal of the appeal, if the said plea was still raised by the defendant. It appears that thereafter, the plaintiff sought amendment in the plaint with regard to valuation and by ORDER :dated 29.08.2005 the prayer for amendment in the plaint was allowed by the appellate court whereby the valuation of the suit was amended as Rs. 50,000/- and ad valorem court fee was paid thereupon. Thereafter, the appellate court heard the two appeals on merits and by the impugned JUDGMENT : and decree dismissed both the appeals. In view of the common JUDGMENT : and decree under appeal in both the s