D. Biswas, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1995 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 22 of 1992 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.6.1992 passed by the Learned Sadar Munsiff No. 4, Silchar in Title Suit No. 16 of 1974.

2. The suit was filed for partition and recovery of possession by evicting the defendant-respondents herein. The learned Sadar Munsiff No. 4, Silchar decreed the suit for partition as the title of the appellants were already adjudged in earlier litigation and finally in Second Appeal No. 132 of 1969. As submitted by the learned counsel at the Bar, there is no dispute that the appellants (plaintiffs) have title over the suit land sought to be partitioned.

3. The learned First Appellate Court set aside the aforesaid judgment on the question of jurisdiction. The learned First Appellate Court held that the suit land has been undervalued and that the suit for partition was not maintainable since the plaintiff-appellants did not approach the Collector for partition at the first instance.

4. This Court while admitting the appeal observed that ground Nos. 1, 2 and 8 will b