JUDGMENT 1. This is defendants' appeal. The dispute is with respect to a piece of land described at the foot of the plaint. The allegations of the plaintiff are that his house is situated in plot no. 1425 corresponding to old plot no. 2223). The land comprised in old plot no. 2224 belongs to the defendants. In between, there was a wall. On October 1, 1953 there was an agreement entered into between the parties in respect of this wall whereby it was stipulated that the wall shall be treated as common. The plaintiff averred further that the defendants threatened and intended to encroach upon the portion lying on their side and hence the relief claimed for possession as well as mandatory injunction by way of demolition. In defence, it was refuted that there was any encroachment made and the plea set up was that the defendants had confined to the land belonging to themselves. 2. The trial court dismissed the suit on May 2, 1961. In appeal the judgment and decrees of the trial court were set aside cm November 20, 1962 and the case remanded for decision afresh. The suit was decreed this time by the trial court on September 30, 1963. In appeal the decree was again set aside and the case remanded. The suit was decreed then on December 15, 1965. The appeal was allowed on 8.11.1968 and the judgment and decree of the trial court set aside. The case was remanded. Again the suit was decreed on April 10, 1971 and the appeal filed against the same was dismissed on April 13, 1977. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred this second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the defendantappellants urged that the lower appellate court has ignored altogether the mandatory requirement of Order 41, Rule 31, CPC in recording the judgment impugned. The material portion of judgment under consideration reads as follows: Admittedly the house of the plaintiff and defendants were contiguous and the agreement Ext. A2 shows that the plaintiff is owner of the plot adjacent to the house of the defendants. The fact is borne out by the evidence by the parties and particularly the statement of defendants in the witness box. A perusal of the document available on the record goes to show that two plots were contiguous to each other and there was a common wall in between the two houses. The fact is borne out by the evidence by the parties and particularly the statement of defendants in the witness box. A perusal of the document available on the record goes to show that two plots were contiguous to each other and there was a common wall in between the two houses. The defendants had taken a plea that they were constructing the wall, at the site of their old wall but the evidence does not show that this was the site of an old wall as suggested by them. The learned Munsif has elaborately assigned the reasons for accepting the contention of the plaintiff and there is no ground to disagree in his findings on issue no one to three. 4. From the above, it is argued that the lower court has not at all referred itself to the evidence placed on record, nor has it recorded its reasons for taking a particular view. It is true that the appeal has been dismissed but even so there has to be some indication of application of mind to the relevant controversy and that can be exhibited from the reasons assigned in support of the view taken. The lower appellate court has contented itself by observing that the trial court had given reasons for accepting the contention of the plaintiff and that was enough. As mentioned above, this case has had a protracted and chequered career. A number of times the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the case hard to be remanded for rehearing. Evidence, both documentaryand oral, has been adduced from both these sides. It is to be expected that the appellate court which has to decide on facts as well as law, takes into consideration specific evidence and assigns reasons, though briefly, for agreeing or disagreeing with the same. The issue turned chiefly, it would appear, on the survey made in the case. The defendantappellants had filed objections dated 371970 against the commissioner's report being relied upon. Those objections are not to be found dealt with specifically by the lower court or even by the trial court for that matter. The issue turned chiefly, it would appear, on the survey made in the case. The defendantappellants had filed objections dated 371970 against the commissioner's report being relied upon. Those objections are not to be found dealt with specifically by the lower court or even by the trial court for that matter. It had to be considered by the lower appellate court as to whether there is substance in the contention in the appeal that the identity of the land could not be established by placing the map of 192223 drawn by the Notified Area Committee over the settlement map of the year 1292 Fasli. 5. Since the lower appellate court is the final court on facts, it is incumbent on it to consider all the evidence adduced by the parties, vide Fakar Ali. v. Spl. Registration Officer (A.I.R. 1971 Assam, 165). The provision contained in Order 41, Rule 31, C.P.C. is regarded as mandatory. If the lower appellate court has not observed the same and recorded its own reasons, or considered the material evidence placed on record, the High Court cannot, in second appeal, look into the facts and arrogate to itself the role of factfinding court; see Sajja Jagan Mohan Rao. v. Uppalapati Babu Rao and others (A.I.R. 1975 Bombay 278). Where lower court proceeds to decide, ignoring material evidence, this Court has jurisdiction to interference in the decision arrived at by it, as held in Radhey Nath Seal's case (A.I.R. 1971 S. C. 1049) and Smt. Sonawati and another v. Sri Ram and another (A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 466). The nonapplication of mind of the lower appellate court as reflected in this case, cannot be equated by any means with the manner in which the High Court decided the appeal, which came up for consideration under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court in the case of Girijanandin Devi and others. v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary (A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1124), cited for the respondents. 6. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated April 13, 1977 are set aside. The case is remanded to the lower appellate court for decision afresh on merit according to law, after giving opportunity to the parties. Costs shall abide the result. (Appeal allowed)