RSA 77/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. N.H. Mazarbhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.12 .2010passed by the learned Civil Judge, Golaghat in Title Appeal No.9/2009 affir ming the judgment and decree 06.07.2009 of the learned Munsiff No.1, Golaghat re ndered in Title Suit No.4/1993. The respondent-plaintiff had instituted the aforementioned suit praying for a de cree for declaration of her right, title and interest over a plot of land measur ing 1 Katha 10 Lechas covered by Dag No.227 of Periodic Patta No.45 of village S almora Mohkhuti gaon under Dhekial mouza. A decree for khas possession of the s uit land was also prayed for. The appellant-defendants contested the suit, in substance pleading that the suit land was never a part of Dag No.227 of P.P. No.45 and instead was located withi n the limits of Dag No.229 of Periodic Patta No.8, which they had been possessi ng in exclusion of others since a long time back. Reference was also made to a proceeding between the parties under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and also a report submi tted by the Circle Officer, Khumtai Revenue Circle therein to the effect that th e suit land was contained in Dag No.229 of Periodic Patta No.8. After the issue s were framed, both the parties adduced evidence and the learned trial Court dis missed the suit. Being aggrieved, the respondent-plaintiff preferred an appeal and the First Appellate Court holding that the crux of the dispute centered arou nd the identity of the suit land remanded the matter for a new trial with a dire ction to issue a fresh survey commission. Accordingly, a commission was ordered by the learned trial court and the Circle Officer, Golaghat Revenue Circle afte r conducting survey of the suit land submitted a report mentioning that the suit land fell in Dag No.227 of P.P. No.45 as claimed by the respondent-plaintiff. The records reveal that though the defendants sometime after the remand particip ated in the suit, they thereafter discontinued to do so. No objection as such was also filed against the authenticity or correctness of the report of the surv ey. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as we ll as the report of the commissioner, decreed the suit. The learned Lower Appel late Court has reiterated the findings on a fresh analysis of the materials on r ecord. Mr. Mazarbhuyan has argued that the Commissioner not having appropriately survey ed the suit land as well as the plots adjoining the same, the findings contained in this report are unacceptable and therefore the learned courts below had erre d in decreeing the suit by accepting the same. The learned counsel has further argued that the learned courts below in ignorin g the first survey report had omitted to take note of a material piece of eviden ce thus vitiating the impugned judgment and order. I have considered the materials on record and have perused closely the judgments of the learned lower courts below. Admittedly, the appellant-defendant did not challenge the order of the First Appellate Court at the first instance remandin g the suit for fresh trial after obtaining another report following a survey of the suit land. Not only the appellants-defendants thereafter abandoned the suit , no objection was raised against the veracity or authenticity of the report and the findings contained therein. The report, in clear terms, disclose that the suit land/path was contained in Dag No.227 of P.P. No.45 as consistently asserte d by the respondent-plaintiff. In the above view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned courts bel ow sustaining the pleaded averments of the respondent-plaintiff and decreeing hi s suit cannot be faulted with. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.