JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.

1. The second appeal challenges the judgement and decree passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Nadia in Title Appeal No. 54 of 2013 reversing thereby the judgement and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Additional Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 39 of 2012.

2. To appreciate the appeal in its proper perspective it is expedient to narrate the facts in brief.

3. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before this Court filed a suit under Section 6 of SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT claiming recovery / restoration of possession under Section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT as allegedly they were dispossessed otherwise than due course of law.

4. Briefly stated, claiming to have acquired right, title. interest over the suit property by purchase from Gafuranechha Bibi on 08.02.1974, Girindra Mohan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, filed a suit for recovery of possession against Gafuranechha Bibi being Title Suit No. 161 of 1979 and Gafuranechha Bibi filed a suit being T.S. No. 78 of 1979 claiming that the sale deed based on which Girindra Kr. Das, predecessor–in-interest of the plaintiffs claimed to have acquired interest over the property for all practical purposes was an agreement for loan in substance and not out and out sell transaction.

5. After trial the suit of Girindra Mohan Das was decreed and an order of eviction was passed while the suit filed by Gafuranechha Bibi was dismissed. Subsequently the decree passed in Title Suit No. 161 of 1979 was put into execution being Title Execution Case No. 10 of 1995 and on 23.11.2009 possession was delivered to the decree holders in the execution proceeding. It is further adverted that on 24.6.2010 the legal heirs of Gafuranechha Bibi dispossessed the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 39 of 2012 by breaking open the padlock of the suit property. The defendants who are claiming under Gafuranechha Bibi contested the suit by filing written statement, denying all material allegations made in the plaint. According to the defendant no. 2 he has acquired the ownership of the property by purchase under a deed dated 28.02.2011 and the defendants have been possessing the suit property peacefully since purchase. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record was pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing thereby the defendants to vacate and transfer of the possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs within sixty days.

7. The defendants challenged the judgement of the learned Trial Court in Title Appeal No. 54 of 2013 and the learned First Appellate Court being the 3rd Court of Additional District Judge, Nadia Krishnanagar was pleased to set aside the judgement of the learned Trial Court, holding inter alia title of the defendants / appellants in the property in question.

8. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgement of learned First Appellate Court, the appeal under consideration has been filed and the second appeal was admitted to decide the following substantial questions of law;-

1. Whether it was legally permissible for the lower appellate court to reverse the judgement and decree of the trial court on grounds extraneous to the suit ?

2. Whether the absence of any challenge to the title of the plaintiffs by the defendants could disentitle the plaintiffs from instituting a suit for recovery of possession on the ground of illegal dispossession?

3. Whether a decree-holder, who is armed with a decree for eviction and who has ob