IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a remand order must be justified and in conformity with the procedural rules, and that additional issues should only be framed when necessary.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. K. Bhagawati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants.

2. This is an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order dated 11.06.2010 passed in Title Appeal No.6/2010 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby the suit was remanded back to the learned Trial Court and was directed to decide the suit afresh by framing an additional issue as to whether the Appellants in the said appeal acquired any title over the suit land by virtue of the Sale Deed executed in their favour by Shri Phatik Chandra Lahkar.

3. For deciding as to whether the learned First Appellate Court had exercised the jurisdiction of remanding the suit inconformity with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 23A or whether the order dated 11.06.2010 is contrary to the provisions of Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code, this Court finds it relevant to take briefly the facts involved which led to the filing of the instant proceedings.

4. The Respondents herein as plaintiffs had filed a suit being Title Suit No.22/2007 seeking a declaration of their possessory right over the suit land; to pass a decree declaring issuance of K.P. Patta No.58 of village Dakshin Sitara under Panduri Mouza in the name of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as unlawful, ineffective and null and void; to pass a decree confirming the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and for permanent injunction etc. It is relevant to take note of that the schedule land pertains to 1 Bigha covered by Dag No.70(old) of yearly periodic patta No.8/ New K.P. Patta No.58 of village Dakshin Sitara under Panduri Mouza.

5. The entire case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs have been residing in the suit land since 25.01.2005 which was purchased from one Shri Phatik Chandra Lahkar through a kacha Sale Deed dated 21.05.2005 and the registered deed could not be executed as the land was annual patta land. It was stated that the land in Annual Patta No.8 containing Dag No.70 originally belonged to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are the Appellants herein and subsequently the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 transferred the suit land to one Shri Phatik Chandra Lahkar and thereupon the said Shri Phatik Chandra Lahkar transferred the suit land to the Plaintiff No.6 as well as the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 on 25.01.2005 vide the unregistered Deed of Sale dated 25.01.2005. It was also stated that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 transferred 2 Bighas of land of the Periodic Patta No.8 of Dag No.70 to the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4.

6. The entire cause of action for the suit was on 20.04.2007 when the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 accompanied with their father forcefully entered into the suit land broke the entrance path of the Plaintiffs standing over the suit land. It was stated that the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and their father claimed that they had purchased the whole land of Dag No.70 from the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through the registered Sale Deed and so the Plaintiffs were compelled to file the suit. It is the further case of the Plaintiffs that the conversion of the annual patta in favour of the Defendant No.1 and 2 and the sale made by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 was absolutely illegal and as such the said suit was filed seeking the reliefs as aforementioned.

7. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed a written statement and a counter claim was also filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 denying the entire case of the Plaintiffs and claiming inter alia that Shri Phatik Chandra Lahkar had no right, title and interest to transfer the schedule land in favour of the Plaintiffs. It was mentioned that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was issued the periodic patta and some area of the land after the issuance of the periodic patta was transferred to the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. However, the suit land was not transferred to the defendant Nos. 3 and 4. On the basis of the counter claim, the Defendant Nos. 1