The First Appellate Court must ensure substantial compliance with procedural norms, even if points for determination are not separately framed, provided all relevant issues are addressed.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent State and Mr. T.R. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. The instant appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 03/2017 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2017 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Darrang, Mangaldoi (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 63/2011.

3. The materials on record show that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 25.01.2019, admitted the instant appeal by formulating the following substantial question of law:-

1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court conforms to the provision under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”).

4. The question arises in the instant appeal, as to whether, the said substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal. For ascertaining the same, this Court briefly would like to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal. The appellant herein, as plaintiff had instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 63/2011 seeking declaration of his right, title and interest over the Schedule A land; for ejectment of the defendants from the Schedule B land by demolishing structure constructed in the Schedule B land and recovery of khas possession in favour of the plaintiff and for perpetual injunction restraining all the main defendants, their servants, workmen and agents from constructing the road in the Schedule B land and interfering into the peaceful possession of the schedule land.

5. The plaintiff's case in brief is that he is the owner and possessor of the land described in Schedule A to the plaint admeasuring 4 Bighas 2 Kathas 11 Lechas covered by Dag No. 330 of Periodic Patta No. 42 (New) situated at Village Gharoa Sonapur under Mouza- Lokrai, P.S. Sipajhar in the district of Darrang. It was mentioned that originally the Narikali Patharighat road was situated on the western side of the Schedule A land and it was the principal means of communication of the villagers. But during the month of October, 2010, the defendants collusively and fraudulently trespassed into the western side of the Schedule A land had started to construct the Patharighat Narikali road under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, thereby causing severe damage to the paddy crops cultivated in the Schedule A land of the plaint. In that process, the plaintiff was dispossessed from a portion of the Schedule A land which has been more specifically described in Schedule B, that is a plot of land admeasuring 3 Kathas 12 Lechas. It is however very interesting to take note of that from a conjoint reading of the schedule of the boundaries mentioned in Schedule A and Schedule B both appears to be the same. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the actions on the part of the defendants in encroaching the Schedule B land had approached the Court by filing the suit seeking the reliefs as aforementioned.

6. The record reveals that the defendants filed se