JUDGMENT Gosul Prasad, J. - The facts of this case need not be detailed at length. They are rather long and would only encumber this judgment. The suit was for recovery of possession of the site of a certain house on the ground of auction purchase. The Munsif framed six issues and having dealt with them in sufficient detail gave a decree in the plaintiff's favour. The chief defendant Gupta Nand went up in appeal and contested almost all the findings of the first Court. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has disposed of the appeal which raised so many questions by the following judgment. "The learned Munsif has dealt with the matter exhaustively, and I can see no reason to differ from any of his conclusions. The appeal is dismissed with costs" The defendant comes here in second appeal and the first contention raised by his learned Vakil is that the lower appellate Court has not disposed of the case as it has written no judgment as is required by law. Reliance is placed on order 41 rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This ground of appeal must pr(sic)vail. The provisions of the law are mandatory and the reason is obvious. A Judge is bound to give the points for decision and the reasons for the decision thereon in order to enable the Court of appeal to see that the Judge whose findings on facts are binding on this Court has put properly before him the points at issue and has decided them. This view has been consistently taken by this Court for more than a quarter of a century. Mr. Justice Straight, then Officiating Chief Justice, observed in the case of Sohawan v. Babu Nand [1887] 9 All. 26. " I am of opinion that the so-called judgment of the lower appellate Court to which exception is taken was, in law, no judgment at all, because it does not satisfy the requirements of S. 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in not stating the points for determination raised by the pleas in appeal, the decision upon them, and the reasons for that decision." In the same case Mr. Justice Mahmood observed at page 31 as follows. Justice Mahmood observed at page 31 as follows. " I cannot but hold that S-574 of the Code contains one of the most salutary provisions of the law, and that considering that this Court in second appeal is bound to accept the findings of fact arrived by the lower appellate Courts, we must insist upon a due obedience by (sic)hose Courts of the mandate of the legislature contained in that section.'. The judgment pronounced in the present case might be typed and stitched to any case from a simple money suit to a suit for determination of most complicated questions of the law of mortgage. The latest case of this Court which I have been able to find in this connection is the case of Badban Singh v. Jaimangal Singh [1906] A.W.N. 86. 2. Having regard to the authorities cited above I have come to the conclusion that there has been no proper determination of the appeal by the lower appellate Court. I therefore allow the appeal set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and remand the, case to that Court under Order 41 rule 23 to decide the points raised therein and to write a judgment according to law. Costs here and hitherto will abide the event.