GOSWAMI, C. J.:- This appli­cation under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order of remand passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati, while deciding an appeal against the decree earlier passed by the learned Munsiff.

2. It is necessary to refer to the vagary of the litigation in this matter over a title suit filed as early as on 6th November, 1957 centering round a dispute with regard to six lessas of land with a thatched cowsh­ed in Gauhati town. The learned Mun­siff dismissed the suit on 5th June 1959. An appeal (T. A. 40/59) was filed before the Additional District Judge who set aside the decree of the trial Court on 7th June, 1960 and re­manded the suit for disposal. The learned Munsiff this time decreed the suit on 5th December, 1961. An ap­peal (T. A. 15/62) was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge, who set aside the decree and remanded the suit on 1st September, 1964 for the second time for disposal in accord­ance with law by appointing a fresh survey commission for surveying of dag No. 2506 (measuring 4 Kathas 12 lessas) to ascertain if the suit land formed part of that dag and directed that further evidence could be adduced by the parties on matters relating to the Survey Commissioner's report. The learned Munsiff heard the suit and this time decreed on 30th Janu­ary, 1969. An appeal (T. A. 45/69) was taken to the learned Assistant District Judge who, on 12th May, 1970, set aside the decree of the learn­ed Munsiff and third time remanded the suit "for disposal in accordance with law after careful consideration of all the issues before him by allow­ing the parties to adduce further evi­dence if they so desire." It is against this last remand order that this civil revision is directed.

3. The plaintiff's case briefly is that he has been in occupation as Mourasi tenant of Janardan Temple land measuring about 4 K. 10 L. in dag No. 1228 (Old) renumbered as dag No. 2506 (new) measuring 4K. 12L and that the defendant came to occupy with the plaintiff's permission six less­as out of this land and erected a thatched cowshed therein. The suit was brought when he refused to va­cate, after notice. The defendant denies the plaintiff's claim. He states that he was in occupation of the land in suit independently under Janardan temple and not with permission of the plaintiff.

4. The learned Additional Dis­trict Judge, while remanding the suit, held as under:

"After taking the entire facts and circumstances into consideration, I hold that the defendant occupied the land in suit under the plaintiff and he has been in permissive possession of the same. As I have already indicat­ed, the defendant does not claim any land of dag No. 2506. The defendant's case is that the suit land does not fall within the plaintiff's dag." The learned Judge further observed:

"The learned Munsiff will appoint an Amin to measure the area of Dag No. 2506 belonging to the plaintiff and to ascertain whether the land in suit forms a part of Dag No. 2506. The plaintiff will be entitled to decree on the basis of the Amin's finding. The other points should be decided on evi­dence on record, as the issues were al­ready framed and the parties led evi­dence on those issues."

5. Before we deal with the points, it is necessary to consider what was intended by the learned Addi­tional District Judge in remanding the suit for the first time. It is true that the learned Judge stated in his order that the other points should be decided on evidence on record as the issues were already fram­ed and the parties led evidence on those issues. We are of opinion that this obser­vation would not entitle the learned Mun­siff to interfere with any findings of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Dis­trict Judge. As noted earlier, the learned Judge held that the defendant occupied the land in suit under the plaintiff and he has been in permissive possession of the same. He also held that the defendant did not claim any land of Dag No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document