1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 19th June 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Contai. The plaintiff sued for confirmation of possession on declaration of title. The dispute really is as to whether this land forms a portion of the plaintiff's nispe or the defendant's nispe. The first Court went into the matter both of possession and on the question of title, and if those matters had been considered by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, there would not have been much to say against his judgment. But what the learned Judge has done in this case is that he has neglected the question of possession altogether. He has not come to any conclusion one way or the other as to who is in possession of the land, and on the question of title he says that it is not proved, solely on the ground that the appellant's Pleader asked for a local enquiry to establish the identity of the land in dispute within certain days A judgment founded on those particulars without really going into the question either of possession or of title is one that cannot stand. The decree of the lower Appellate Court must accordingly be set aside and the case sent back to that Court for the appeal being heard in a proper manner.
2. Costs will abide the result of the re-hearing by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court.