The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the First Appellate Court to render specific findings in respect of all the issues based on the evidence available on record, particularly when it is a case of reversal of a decree.

Heard Mr. F.U. Borbhuyan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree of reversal dated 22-07-2004 passed by the Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 39/2002 allowing the appeal filed by the defendants as appellants thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13-05-2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 2, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 176/1999 whereby the learned Trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

3. The case of the appellant plaintiff, in brief, is that Gopendra Namasudra and Dhaniram Namasudra, both sons of late Madhab Namasudra, were the resident of village Suprakandi and enjoying right and possession in respect of the suit land as jute tenants under the landlord Kumar Bahadur. The said two persons had sold the jute right in respect of the suit land to the plaintiff about 38/39 years ago and delivered possession in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, Gopendra Namasudra had cancelled his name in the touzi of the landlord and substituted the name of the plaintiff in the touzi. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the said plot of land and enjoying tenancy right in respect thereof. The plaintiff had also engaged labourers for carrying out cultivation of the suit land and during the settlement operation in the year 1960-69 the plaintiff’s name was recorded in the records of right in the mouza Omarpur Part-IV under Dag No. 561 of Khatian No. 116 on the strength of the entry of his name in the touzi.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that although the defendants being his stepsisters did not have any right, title and interest over the suit land, yet, they have been openly professing their claim over the suit land and had also threatened to wrongfully dispossess the plaintiff which compelled him to institute the suit for declaration of right, title and interest; confirmation of possession and for temporary and permanent injunction.

5. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement inter-alia questioning the maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of cause of action; suit being barred by limitation as well as bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The defendants have denied the case of the plaintiff in general while claiming the right, title and interest and possession of the land on the basis of right of purchase.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court had framed as many as four issues which are as follows:-

1. Is there case of action for the suit?

2. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

3. Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

7. During the course of the trial both sides examined three witnesses and produce documentary evidence. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record the learned Trial Court had decided the issue No. 1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaratory decree as prayed for in the suit. Issue No. 4 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff as a result of which plaintiff’s suit stood decreed with all the reliefs prayed for.

8. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendants as appellants had preferred Title Appeal No. 39/2002 in the court of Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Karimganj questioning the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned First Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of reversal dated 22-07-2004 passed by t