JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - The unsuccessful Defendants in the Courts below are the Appellants here. The Plaintiffs were the Jagirdars in respect of plot Nos. 913, 914, 1094, 1165, 1166, 1168 and 1169. In lieu of holding this jagir, they were rendering was her man's service to the Sarbarakars of the village. The original Sarbarakars were Sachidananda, Baishnab and Kalandi. Later on, one Paramananda acquired the entire Sarbarakari interest. In 1949, Paramananda's Sabarakari interest was put up for sale and was purchased by one Arjun Prusti. It is the common ground of the parties that Zamindaries were abolished in 1954 and that the disputed Sarbarakari sub-proprietary rights were abolished in the year 1959.60. 2. In the year 1962, three of the disputed plots, namely, plot Nos. 913, 914 and 1094 were acquired by Government for the purpose of Express Highway. Compensation for the acquired lands was to be paid. The Defendants in the suit claimed the compensation amount from Government contending that in the year 1940 they obtained a lease of the entire disputed lands from Keshab, the son of Paramananda, the Sarbarakar. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration of their title to the disputed lands, for confirmation, or in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the same and for a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer not to pay to the Defendants compensation in respect of plot Nos. 913, 914 and 1094. 3. The Defendants resisted the suit. Their contention, in short, is that as the Plaintiffs failed to render the service for which the lands had been granted in Jagir to them, the original Sarbarakars resumed the same and were in possession thereof, that subsequently in the year 1940, the lands were based out to them Defendants by Keshab, the son of Paramananda, the then Sarbarakar and that since then they are in possession of the disputed lands, having good title thereto, and that consequently, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief's claimed by them in the plaint. 4. The trial Court recorded the following findings: (1) The Plaintiffs are in possession of plot Nos. 1165, 1166,1168 and 1169, plot Nos. 913, 914 and 1094 having already been acquired by Government. (2) The Plaintiffs, however, have not been rendering any service. 4. The trial Court recorded the following findings: (1) The Plaintiffs are in possession of plot Nos. 1165, 1166,1168 and 1169, plot Nos. 913, 914 and 1094 having already been acquired by Government. (2) The Plaintiffs, however, have not been rendering any service. (3) Notwithstanding the above the story of the Defendants that the Sarbarakars resumed the Jagir from the Plaintiffs is not proved. (4) Consequent on the abolition of the Sarbarakari right in 1959-60, the Sarbarakari interest and also the disputed lands vested in the State. As the Plaintiffs failed to make an application u/s 8(3) read with Section 8A(2) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, they have lost their title to the disputed lands. (5) The case of the Defendants that they acquired right to the disputed lands under a lease in the year 1940 from Keshab is not true and Defendants have absolutely no right to the disputed property. (6) Notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff's have no title to The disputed property, they being in possession of plot Nos. 1165, 1166, 1168 and 1169 can retain their possession as against all excepting the true owner, namely, the Government in this case. They are, therefore, entitled to a decree confirming their possession of these four plots of lands as against the Defendants who have no better title than the Plaintiffs. (7) The Plaintiffs, who have no title to the three plots of land acquired by Government, will not be entitled to get the compensation amount for the same. In the result, the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs confirming their possession in respect of plot Nos. 1165, 1166, 1168 and 1169 and dismissing their claim in respect of the three remaining plots 913, 914 and 1094, and also their claim for recovery of compensation amount from Government. The learned Munsif was of opinion that so far as the compensation money is concerned, as neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants have any right thereto, the amount, should be credited to the account of Government. 5. The Defendants being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Munsif, filed an appeal. But there was no cross appeal by the Plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal reversed the decision of the Munsif and incidentally observed that the erstwhile right of the Plaintiffs to receive the compensation for the acquisition of plot Nos. 5. The Defendants being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Munsif, filed an appeal. But there was no cross appeal by the Plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal reversed the decision of the Munsif and incidentally observed that the erstwhile right of the Plaintiffs to receive the compensation for the acquisition of plot Nos. 913, 914 and 1094, subject to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, is also upheld. I am unable to understand what exactly the learned Subordinate Judge meant by this. I agree with the trial Court that the Plaintiffs having failed to make an application u/s 8(3) read with Section 8A(2) of the Abolition Act, they have lost their right to plot Nos. 913, 914 and 1094. But it is not understood how the learned Subordinate Judge could pass the order as he has done in respect of these three plots especially when the Plaintiffs had not filed any cross appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. Mr. D.S. Nanda, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents rightly conceded that he would not be able to support this part of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. 6. The main grievance of the learned Advocate for the Appellants' against the judgment of the Appellate Court is that it has not at all discussed the evidence, although all the findings recorded by the learned Munsif were challenged before him. This is how the learned Subordinate Judge dealt with the lower Court judgment. Instead of repeating the detailed reasonings, assigned by the learned Munsif, I would echo his findings, that the Plaintiffs' family did not continue to render the required service to the ?Sarbarakars', evidently because the latter (lid not insist on the same. The story of resumption, as advanced on behalf of the contesting Defendants, has been rightly rejected by him for the reasons, discussed in detail in his judgment, without requiring repetition. x x x x. This is how he proceeded and has not at all discussed the evidence on record. The story of resumption, as advanced on behalf of the contesting Defendants, has been rightly rejected by him for the reasons, discussed in detail in his judgment, without requiring repetition. x x x x. This is how he proceeded and has not at all discussed the evidence on record. It has been repeatedly held that the first Appellate Court whose findings on questions of fact are meant to be final, should carefully discuss and weigh the evidence on record and come to their own conclusions, and it is not sufficient to merely record their agreement with that the trial Courts said; It may be, after discussing the evidence, they would arrive at the same conclusion at which the trial Court has arrived, but it must be apparent from his judgment that such a conclusion had been arrived at by the Appellate Court after independent assessment of the evidence on record. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court sadly lacks in this approach. 7. In the result, therefore, I would allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court and remit the case back to him for disposal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs.