This is defendant's appeal. Briefly the facts are that one Bogabhot had two wives. From his first wife he had two sons, Sona and Khedalu. His first wife and both the sons from his first wife died during his life-time. There­after he married Sarufuli. Sarufuli according to the plaintiff had a daughter Telo and a son Rupa. Plaintiff is the son of Telo. Rupa had a daughter Bhogriya who is now dead and was married to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 claims to be a direct descendant of Bogabhot's brof her Indur. The admitted fact is that Bogabhot acquired the right of occupancy under pro forma defendants Nos. 3 to 10 in respect of 21 B. 3 K. 4 lechas of land described in the schedule attached to the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that after the death of Bogabhot the property devolved upon his son Rupa and after the death of Rupa the plaintiff as the sister's son of Rupa is his heir. The plain­tiff claims to be the preferential heir of Rupa. (2) The defence taken was mainly that Telo-plaintiff's mother was not the real sister of Rupa. Sarufuli had been married before she was married to Bogabhot and Telo the mother of the plaintiff was born of her wedlock with her former husband. The plaintiff thus is not the sister's son of Rupa and has no preferential claim over that of the defendant. Only defendant' No. 1 contested the suit. (3) Both the Courts on consideration of the evidence have come to the conclusion that Tele-is the daughter of Sarufuli from Bogabhot and not from her former husband and the plaintiff is a preferential heir., (4) The only point urged before me is that the judgment of the Court below is no judgment in the eye of law. In substance the argument is that the Court below has affirmed the decree of the trial Court without applying its mind to the evi­dence and thus there has been no proper disposal of the appeal. The Court below has committed an error of procedure and this Court can under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code interfere with the decision of the lower appellate Court. The Court below has committed an error of procedure and this Court can under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code interfere with the decision of the lower appellate Court. There are two alternatives open to this Court - either to send back the case to the Court below-for disposal of the appeal or examine evidence for itself and come to its own conclusion on the merits, of the case. The infirmity pointed out in the judg­ment of the Court below is that the Court below has not independently examined the evidence for itself. It has only affirmed the assessment of the evidence made by the trial Court. In the grounds-some part of the evidence of the plaintiff has beers quoted to show that if the Court below had applied its mind to the evidence of the plaintiff's and defendant's witnesses independently, it could not have come to the conclusion to which it came. Reference is made to two cases of this Court in support of the contention that the Court below should not only endorse the view of the trial Court but should also give reference to the evi­dence and give its own reason for believing or disbelieving the evidence of the parties. (5) The first case referred to is Ambor Ali v. Nichar Ali, AIR 1950 Assam 79. Particular reference is made to the following passage at page 80 of the report: "We wish to point out to the Munsiff, just as we have pointed it out to the Subordinate Judge, that it is not sufficient merely to say that on a careful consideration of the evidence, the Court has come to this or that conclusion. The material evidence on a particular issue for and against the-parties to the suit must be set out in the judg­ment, and reasons stated for its acceptance or rejection." In another unreported decision of this Court in the case of Budhmal v. Jalannagar South Estates Ltd., Second Appeal No. 122 of 1960 D/- 21-3-1961 (Assam)-.which is my judgment, this principle was accepted. The Court of appeal in India is a Court of rehear­ing and it has to examine the evidence indepen­dently for itself and not only to see if there is-any defect in the judgment of the trial Court. The Court of appeal in India is a Court of rehear­ing and it has to examine the evidence indepen­dently for itself and not only to see if there is-any defect in the judgment of the trial Court. The opinion of the trial Court as regards the ap­preciation of evidence is no doubt entitled to at-great weight as the trial Court had an opportunity |o watch the demeanour of the witnesses. But it does not mean that the lower appellate Court in every case must write out an elaborate judgment. So long as it is apparent from the perusal of the judgment of the trial Court that it has considered the points arising in the case and has examined the evidence and has come to its own independent conclusion on the points at issue after the perusal of the evidence on the record, merely because the judgment of the appellate Court is not elaborate and the judge has not given in detail the summary of the evidence produced by the parties, it cannot be said that the judgment of the appellate Court is no judgment in the eye of law and the appel­late Court has committed an error of procedure. (6) As pointed out by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Ramchandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar, AIR 1963 SC 302 : "In hearing a second appeal, if the High Court is satisfied that the decision is contrary to law or some usage having the force of law, or that the 'decision has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law, or if there is a substantial error or defect in the procedure provid­ed by the Code, or by any of her law for the time being in force which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits, it can interfere with the conclusions of the lower appellate Court. **** **** **** **** **** **** The error or defect in the procedure to which clause (c) of S. 100(1) refers is, as the clause clear­ly and unambiguously indicates, an error or defect connected with, or relating to the procedure; it is not an error or defect in the appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties on the merits. **** **** **** **** **** **** The error or defect in the procedure to which clause (c) of S. 100(1) refers is, as the clause clear­ly and unambiguously indicates, an error or defect connected with, or relating to the procedure; it is not an error or defect in the appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties on the merits. That is why, even if the appreciation of evidence made by the lower appellate Court is patently erroneous and the finding of fact recorded in consequence is grossly erroneous, that cannot be said to introduce a substantial error or defect in the procedure. On the of her hand, if in dealing with a question of fact, the lower appellate Court has placed the onus on a wrong party and its finding of fact is the result, substantially, of this wrong approach, that may be regarded as a defect in procedure; if in dealing with questions of fact, the lower ap­pellate Court discards evidence on the ground that it is inadmissible and the High Court is satisfied that the evidence was admissible, that may introduce an error or defect in procedure. If the lower appellate Court fails to consider an issue which had been tried and found upon by the trial Court and proceeds to reverse the trial court's decision with­out the consideration of such an issue, that may be regarded as an error or defect in procedure; if the lower appellate Court allows a new point of fact to be raised for the first time before it, or permits a party to adopt a new plea of fact, or makes out a new case for a party, that may, in some cases, be said to amount to a defect or error in procedure. But the High Court cannot inter­fere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court however erroneous the said conclusions may appear to be to the High Court." The Supreme Court has further pointed out that if the finding has been recorded without any evi­dence or that the finding is such that no reason­able person can come to that conclusion, it will be an error of law. But the High Court is not justified in interfering with the finding of fact re­corded by the lower appellate Court merely be­cause the judgment of the lower appellate Court was not as elaborate as that of the trial Judge, or because some of the reasons given by the trial judge had not been expressly reversed by the lower appellate Court. (7) The test, therefore, is whether from the perusal of the judgment it can be said that the trial Court has not considered the evidence at all. The lower appellate Court has held that the witnesses for the plaintiff appeared to be more reliable and their evidence appeared to be consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court below has referred to the evidence of the plaintiff and has not merely affirmed the estimate of evidence made by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court has considered the defence evi­dence and has compared the reliability of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff and the defen­dant. He has remarked that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses appears to be more reliable, as observed above. He has also referred to of her circumstances which go to show that the defen­dant's case cannot be believed. It is not even a case of reversal where one could have legitimate­ly expected that the lower appellate Court would .deal with some of the reasons of the trial Court. It is a case of affirmance of the judgment the trial Court has considered the evidence and I do not think that the judgment of the 'lower appel­late Court can be regarded as no judgment in the eye of law. The question which came up for .consideration has been clearly set out in the judgment of the Court below. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Court below has not applied its mind to the points which arose in the case. The question for decision is a pure question of fact. The Court below has not accepted the evi­dence of the defendant and has believed the evi­dence of the plaintiff. That being so, howsoever erroneous the as­sessment of the evidence by the lower appellate Court may be, this Court will not interfere with the decision under Sec. 100, Civil Procedure Code. The question for decision is a pure question of fact. The Court below has not accepted the evi­dence of the defendant and has believed the evi­dence of the plaintiff. That being so, howsoever erroneous the as­sessment of the evidence by the lower appellate Court may be, this Court will not interfere with the decision under Sec. 100, Civil Procedure Code. In this view of the matter it is not necessary for me to go into the evidence and deal with the criticism made of the evidence of the plaintiff by the counsel for the appellant, nor to examine the reasons given by the counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that the evidence of the defendant should be preferred to that of the plaintiff. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost. Appeal dismissed.