1. Heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Sen, advocate, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Sarma, advocate, appearing for the State respondents.

2. Title Suit 305/1993 was brought about by the appellant/plaintiff praying for confirmation of land holder's right and ownership right over the Schedule II land and Schedule III house as described in the plaint with further prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from eviction of the plaintiff from the Schedule II land. A declaration was also sought that the land described in Schedule II is not Government Khas land and also not a PWD road. The defendant duly contested the suit and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also stated that a bare perusal of the plaint would make it clear that the plaintiff had not furnished any specific Schedule of the suit land. Rather, the said Schedule of the suit land is wholly imaginary with only certain taluks having been mentioned.

3. Upon rival pleadings, the learned trial court framed as many as 6 issues together with an additional issue with regard to the plaintiff's right, title, interest and possession over the suit land as well as over the suit house. Upon consideration of the materials on record and on the findings that the plaintiff could not discharge his burden on proving his title over the suit land, dismissed the suit on contest with costs.

4. The appellant, namely, Sri Jitendra Kumar Das, preferred Title Appeal No. 18/2000 and the First Appellate Court after going through the evidence on record and considering the grounds taken in the appeal, determined the following points for discussion and just decision of the appeal:

(a) Whether the learned lower court has failed to understand the case of the plaintiff and thereby committed error in deciding the suit properly?

(b) Whether the issues have been decided properly by the lower court? If not, whether the impugned judgement and decree passed by the lower court is liable to be set aside and the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for ?"

5. The pleadings at paragraph 2 of the plaint were discussed by the First Appellate Court, as had been done by the trial court. The First Appellate Court held that the cause of action was based on surmises of the plaintiff and the suit itself was not maintainable in the present form. At paragraph 5 of the judgment, the First Appellate Court also dealt with one of the grounds in the appeal with regard to as to whether the lower court had failed to understand the case of the plaintiff/appellant.

6. After going through all the evidence and after a detailed discussion, the appeal was dismissed and the judgement and decree of the trial court was accordingly confirmed.

7. The second appeal filed by the plaintiff Sri Jitendra Kumar Das against the concurrent findings of the courts below was admitted for hearing by order dated 7.5.2004 and while doing so, the following substantial question of law was formulated:

"I. Whether the learned courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant without taking into consideration the averments made by the appellant in paragraph 2 of the plaint in the Title Suit 36/ 1989."

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant points out that the mention of Title Suit No. 36/1989 should actually be read as Title Suit No. 305/ 1993. Accordingly, the said substantial question of law, so formulated, will now read as:

"I. Whether the learned courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant without taking into consideration the averments made by the appellant in paragraph 2 of the plaint in the Title Suit No. 305/1993.”

8. At the outset, it would be apposite to say that the existence of substantial question of law is sine-qua-non for exercise of jurisdiction under section 100, CPC. The adequacy and sufficiency of evidence cannot be looked into or gone