The appellate court must independently assess evidence and reasoning of the trial court, especially in reversals, to ensure adherence to procedural mandates.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgement dated 19.12.2016 (decree sealed and sighed on 06.01.2017) passed by learned District Judge -II Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 152 of 2009 whereby the learned 1^st Appellate Court has reversed the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court’s judgement has been passed by learned Subordinate judge-5, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 208 of 1995 whereby the suit was decreed.

2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 02.11.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“I. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the Learned Lower Court have committed serious error of law in not considering that certain registered document relating to land take effect against the unregistered document in view of provision as contained in Section 50 of the Registration Act?

II. Whether the unregistered agreement dated 21.09.1991 would superseded over the registered sale deed dated 31.07.1992 which is prior in time?

III. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court while recording the finding have committed serious error by holding that the unregistered agreement dated 21.09.1991 is part of Exhibit A?

IV. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court suffers from perversity in as much as unregistered agreement dated 21.09.1991 is part of Exhibit A without examining the documentary evidence available on the record to its true perspective?

V. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Lower Appellate Court suffers from the vices of perversity and the same is contrary to the admissible evidence available on the records?

VI. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court while reversing the well-considered and reasoned order passed by the learned Trial Court should have specifically advert its own reasoning by meeting the reasons assigned at para-7 of the Trial Court judgment?"

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant who was the plaintiff before the Court submits that the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the same has been reversed by the Appellate Court and therefore this second appeal is against the judgement of reversal. He has further submitted that the learned Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidences on record and also the boundaries of the property involved in the registered sale deed no. 5937 dated 31.07.1992 (Exhibit-1) and registered sale deed dated 12.08.1991 (Exhibit-A) has come to the conclusion that the properties are not one and the same. The learned counsel submits that the Appellate Court while reversing the decree has considered the point for determination as issue nos. 3 and 4 framed by the learned Trial Court but no finding has been recorded in connection with the aforesaid finding of the learned trial court. Rather, there is no discussion in the Appellate court’s judgment in connection with the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. He has also submitted that the learned Appellate Court while deciding the appeal has proceeded under the assumption that the property covered by Exhibit-A and Exhibit-1 are the same and has applied Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act which is applicable only when the identity of the property is one and the same. The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned Appellate Court has recorded that in exhibit-A there were two vendors namely Raju Karmakar and his brother Niranjan Karmakar whereas the plaintiff had purchased the property (exhibit-1) only from Raju Karmakar.

4. The learned counsel submits that the last substantial question of law which has been framed by this Court i.e. substantial question no. VI is attracted in the present case and in such circumstances the matter is fit to be remanded to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration. He has also submitted that the answer to the aforesaid substantial question of law wi