PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) PRASENJIT MANDAL, J.: This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant herein and is directed against the judgment and decree of reversal dated September 16, 2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No.25 of 2003 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated September 30, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No.76 of 1999.
(2.) THE plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. The defendants are contesting the said suit by denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. Both the parties adduced evidence and on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge had decreed the suit. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.25 of 2003 which was allowed on contests without costs thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.
(3.) AT the time of admission of the appeal, the following three substantial questions of law were framed for decision in the second appeal: - "I. Whether the learned Additional District Judge erred in law in misinterpreting the true legal purport of the registered Sale Deed, being Exhibit -1, thereby committing a patent error of law. II. Whether the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is a proper judgment of the reversal inasmuch as it does not advert to all the reasons assigned by the Court of first instance but sets aside the Trial Court's verdict merely because another view was possible in the Appellate Court's opinion. III. Whether the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is perverse inasmuch as he holds that the Trial Court has made out a third case beyond the pleadings, which is contrary to the records." ;