IMPORTANT POINT
The first appellate court must engage in a thorough examination of the evidence and issues before reversing a trial court's judgment, ensuring that its decision is based on a proper understanding of the facts and law.

JUDGMENT :

(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.) :

1. By order dated 16.05.2023, this appeal was directed to be heard ex-parte,under Order 41 Rule 17 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the learned counsel for the respondents failed to appear on consecutive dates, when this appeal was listed for hearing. Heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland for the appellants. None has appeared for the respondents.

2. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the State of Nagaland and three other appellants, impugning the decree and judgment dated 18.10.2017, passed by learned Principal District Judge, Dimapur in Civil Appeal No. 1/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur in Title Suit No. 1/2007 was set aside.

3. At the time of admission of this regular second appeal (RSA), following substantial questions of law were formulated.

a) Whether the First Appellate court can reverse and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court without discussing the issues and the evidences on the basis of which the reasoning and findings of trial court is based?

b) Whether the wrong legal approach was adopted by the lower appellate court in deciding the Civil Appeal 01/2015 by referring only to the decision of the high court and discarding the entire evidence on which the finding of the trial court was based?

c) Whether the impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2017 which is not based on re-appreciation/discussion of evidence is a valid judgment in the eye of law?

4. The case of the appellants, in brief, is as follows:

(i) That the present respondents, as plaintiffs, instituted a title suit bearing T.S. No. 1/2017 in Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur, Nagaland for declaration of title over suit land and for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs’ case, in brief, is as follows:

a. That, by an order no. REV-28/89-D/1041-43 A/ dated 27.04.1992 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, a plot of land measuring 0 Bigha 0 Katha 4 Lecha covered by Dag No. 415 and a plot of land measuring 0 Bigha 3 Katha 9 Lecha covered by Dag No. 416 in Block No. 6 (total land measuring 0 Bigha 3 Katha 13 Lecha, hereinafter referred to as suit land), was regularized/allotted in favour plaintiff no. 1 (respondent no.1 of the present appeal). It was contended that the Plaintiff no.1 was in possession of suit land for about six years prior to said allotment.

b. Thereafter, the Plaintiff no. 1 was issued the jamabandi/patta no. 609, Dag no. 868 and 869 in Block no. 6, Mouza no. 1 of Dimapur town. Dag no. 868 covered an area of 0 Bigha 0 Katha and 4 Lecha while Dag no. 869 covered an area of 0 Bigha 3 Katha 9 Lecha.

c. The Plaintiff No. 1 gifted, to the Plaintiff No. 2 a portion of suit land measuring 0 Bigha 1 Katha 17 Lecha by a gift deed dated 15.11.1994. Later on by order dated 30.07.1995, said land was mutated in favour of Plaintiff No. 2 and the jamabandi/patta no. 619, Dag No. 881 in block no. 6, Mouza No. 1 of Dimapur Town was issued to the Plaintiff No. 2.

d. The Plaintiff No. 2 was in peaceful possession of the said land allotted to him, however, on 30.04.1997, the Medical Superintendant, Civil Hospital, Dimapur (Appellantno.4intheinstantappealandDefendantno. 4intheTitleSuitNo.1/2007)lodged a complaint against the plaintiffs to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur against unauthorized allotment of land inside Civil Hospital compound.

e. The complaint filed by the Defendant no. 4 was examined by revenue authorities and the Defendant no. 4 was informed by letter dated 31.05.1997 that the land allotted to plaintiff under part of Dag No. 415 and 416 does not fall within the purview of the Civil Hospital, Dimapur which falls under Dag No. 418. However, the revenue authorities issued the order dated 03.06.1997 restraining the plaintiffs from undertaken any development activities on the land covere