The main legal point established is that issues framed in a case must arise from the pleadings of the parties and be based on material propositions of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other.

This appeal is against the order of remand dated 24.12.2003 passed in Title Appeal No.23 of 1994, whereby learned Vth Additional District Judge, Palamau has framed a new issue and remanded to the trial court for deciding the same. The issue framed by learned court is “whether any forgery was the motive factor of such orders and whether any forgery was committed in Exbt.D/6/1.”

2. The sole ground taken by the appellant is that the said issue does not at all arise in the suit between the parties being title Suit No.102 of 1966 and the order of remand is wholly misconceived contrary to law and liable to be set aside.

3. In the suit, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had only appeared and filed written statement. The State of Bihar was a party, but did not appear in the suit.

4. In their written statement, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had taken several grounds for contesting the suit. But there was no pleading alleging forgery of revenue record (Exbt.D/6/1).

5. In order to appreciate the said ground of the appellant, the pleadings of the parties in the suit are required to be seen.

6. The appellant was the plaintiff in the court below. He had filed the said Title Suit No.102 of 1966 in the court of Munsif, Palamau seeking declaration that the lands in Schedule-B are the raiyati lands of the plaintiff over which the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have no right, title and interest. Their possession over the suit land is as trespassers and the alleged settlement made by defendant No.5 is invalid and inoperative. The plaintiff/appellant had further prayed for restoration of possession of the suit land after ejecting the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 there from and also for a decree of mesne profits.

7. According to the plaintiff, the suit lands of village Dulhi, P.S. Patan, District Palamau are part of Bakast land which were in khas possession of the ex-landlord. In Partition Suit No.8/16 of 1931, the said lands were described in Schedule-A allotted to Ram Sewak Sahu. The plaintiff's father purchased the lands of Schedule-A allotted to Ram Sewak Sahu and others. The plaintiff's father was put in possession of the lands by the venders. After death of plaintiff's father, the plaintiff and his brother jointly came in possession of the suit land and by amicable arrangement, they separated and partitioned the land half and half. The plaintiff and his brothers are, thus, in peaceful possession of the land described in Schedule-A.

8. After vesting of Zamindari, Return was filed in 'K' Form by the plaintiff and his brothers giving rise to A.R. Case No.304 of 1955-56. In the said case the Revenue Officer never visited the spot. In another case being A.R. Case no. 281/392 of 1959-60, Istehar was published but no objection was filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. The plaintiff was under impression that the spot inspection and enquiry shall be held in the said case. Subsequently, the plaintiff and his father filed a petition for getting land improvement loan. The Circle Inspector made enquiry and found possession of the plaintiff and his brother Pursottam Lal and recommended for releasing loan amount as applied for by them. The plaintiff, thereafter, sold portion of land of Schedule-A to different persons including Yugeshwar Singh. The transferees came in possession of the suit land. After transferring some portions, the plaintiff and his brother remained in khas possession of the remaining land of Schedule-A, which is described in Schedule-B of the plaint. The lands of Schedule-B is the suit land.

9. The further case of the plaintiff is that in the month of November, 1962 when the paddy crops grown in the suit land was almost ripe for harvesting, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their father started claiming over the land and making attempt to harvest the crop. The dispute led to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. which was subsequently converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

10. In course of enquiry in the said proceeding, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2