The failure of the Trial Court to adequately consider evidence and provide a reasoned judgment necessitates remand for fresh consideration, ensuring jurisdiction is correctly exercised and due process followed.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This present second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned District, Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2016 affirming the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura dated 30.11.2015 passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 2005.

2. The main contention of the plaintiff-appellants is that their predecessor-in-interest, namely, late Rajendra Lal Saha, got the suit land along with other lands of a total area measuring 0.40 acres (one kani as per local measurement) from Talukdar Rana Dahal Jung Bahadur by a registered Patta dated 19.08.1952. After that, he sold out eight gandas and two karas to land to one Anath Bandhu Saha, one gandas and two karas of land to one Smt. Subhashini Saha (his own sister), four gandas and two karas of land were acquired by the Government and the rest portion of the land i.e. 0.11 acres, was duly recorded in Khatian No. 719 in his name. After his death on 03.02.1988, the plaintiffs inherited the said 0.11 acres of land and they have been residing in the contiguous land owned by Smt. Subhashini Saha, leaving the suit land vacant. Taking that chance, the defendant-respondents (for short, hereinafter mentioned as the defendants) dispossessed the plaintiff-appellants from the suit land in the month of August 1997 and constructed one latrine therein illegally and unauthorisedly.

3. Hence, the suit was filed against the defendant-respondents in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura, for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The said suit was numbered as T.S. 23 of 2005.

4. Two separate written statements were filed by the defendants denying the averments made in the plaint.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed six number of issues and in the judgment of the learned Trial Court, issues number 1 and 2 have been decided together, while the rest of the issues have been decided in the same manner. While giving the findings, the learned Court below decided issues number 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. While deciding the said issues number 3 to 6, the learned Court below found that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs either sold the land by him or acquired it from him and no balance quantum of land was left with him. So, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

6. Against the said judgment of the learned Trial Court, the appellants filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the Court of learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, which was numbered as T.A.12 of 2016 and the learned Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by its judgment dated 19.11.2019 apparently affirming the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff-appellants herein have preferred this instant second appeal.

8. This present second appeal was admitted in 01.10.2020 on the following substantial questions of law:-

'(i) Whether the judgment of the learned 1st Appellate Court dismissing the appeal and affirming the dismissal of the suit passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, suffers from wrong exercise of jurisdiction as vested upon him under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?

(ii) Whether the judgments of the learned Courts below are perverse?'

9. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. A. Pal, learned counsel appe