JUDGMENT ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. This second appeal is by the defendants against a judgment of reversal in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. 2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land, measuring 8 Kathas and 19 dhurs, appertaining to plot nos. 688 and 848 under Khata Nos. 104 and 261, situate in village Patori, in the district of Saharsa. According to the plaintiffs these two plots in question along with other plots were auction purchased in 1915 and 1918 by the ex–landlords in a rent decree and since then they were coming in possession over the suit land as Bakast land. The plaintiffs' further case was that about 20 years ago the ex–landlords or the heirs of the ex–landlords orally sold the suit land to the plaintiffs in consideration of Rs. 40/- and put them in possession aver the same. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the plaintiffs having no proof of oral purchase requested the defendants 2nd party members 6 to 10 to execute the Kewala in their favour to which they agreed and executed a registered Kewala of the suit land on 6.8.1966 in favour of plaintiff no. 3. (Bhogi Pandit), in consideration of Rs. 350/-, but by mistake of the Deed–Writer the statement of previous oral sale and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was left to be scribed in the Kewala. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendants 1st party, in collusion with the police, started a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was later on converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order in the proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C. went against the plaintiffs, which necessitated the filing of the present suit. 3. The case of the contesting defendants (defendants 1st party) is that the ancestors of defendants 1st party acquired the land measuring 16 Bighas, 5 Kathas and 5 dhurs, appertaining to Khata No. 234. The ancestors of defendants 2nd party took settlement of land of an area of 5 Bighas 11 Kathas 2 dhurs of Khata no. 234 from the ex–landlords in 1331 Fs. The ancestors of defendants 2nd party took settlement of land of an area of 5 Bighas 11 Kathas 2 dhurs of Khata no. 234 from the ex–landlords in 1331 Fs. i.e. in 1924 and again their ancestors took settlement of the land of an area of 19 Kathas and 18 Dhurs from one Babu Ranjeet Singh, Babu Yadunandan Singh and Harinandan Singh on 25th Magh, 1333 Fs. in which the suit land includes. Thus, according to defendants 1st party, they got a holding of an area of 22 Bighas, 16 Kathas and 5 Dhurs, and also got rent receipts of the years 1331 and 1333 Fs. According to defendants they have been paying rent and receipts from 1333 to 1352 Fs. were granted to them. 4. The defendants' further case was that after partition the land measuring 5 Bighas, 8 Kathas and 10 Ddurs, including the suit plots, fell in the share of defendants 1st party of which they received the rent receipts of the year 1362 Fs. and thereafter, the ex–landlords filed the Return for 5 Bighas, 8 Kathas and 10 Dhurs, including the suit land before the State of Bihar. The defendants 1st party had been paying the rents. According to the defendants, the defendants 1st party sold some piece of land and came in possession over 4 Bighas, 4 Kathas and 4 Dhurs, including the suit land, of which they obtained the rent receipts from 1960-63. According to the defendants again some land was sold and they owned and possessed 2 Bighas, 10 Kathas and 6 Dhurs, but by mistake of the, Karamchari a lesser area was mentioned in the rent receipt. According to the contesting defendants, in the recent survey they got Parcha of the land including the suit land and after partition they got their share and executed a memorandum. The contenting defendants pleaded that the ex–landlords were in collusion with the plaintiffs. 5. The defendants 2nd party also filed a written statement, admitted the facts as pleaded by the plaintiffs. The defendant 3rd party neither appeared nor filed any written statement. 6. The trial Court dismissed the suit and held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title to the suit land. There was absence of the document of oral purchase from ex–landlords, as set up by the plaintiffs. The defendant 3rd party neither appeared nor filed any written statement. 6. The trial Court dismissed the suit and held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title to the suit land. There was absence of the document of oral purchase from ex–landlords, as set up by the plaintiffs. Neither the return of the suit land was deposited by the ex–landlords in his name nor in the name of the tenant. The trial court further held that the defendants 1st party had proved their title over the suit land by producing the relevant papers concerning the suit land. The trial court further held that the plaintiffs had not established possession over the suit land by adducing evidence. 7. Thus, in short, the trial court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title and possession over the suit land and they were not entitled to the reliefs' asked for. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The court of appeal below allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. It held that the plaintiffs had proved their title to and possession over the suit lands and negatived the case of the defendants 1st party. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1st party appellants has advanced two submissions–(i) That the finding to the effect that the plaintiffs had proved their title over the suit land is not binding in second appeal, as this finding is not based upon consideration of any of the materials relating to the title, hence, the judgment under appeal is not in accordance with jaw and (ii) That the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below need to be interfered with as the court of appeal below was not right in its finding without taking into consideration several of the documents including Exts. D and D/1 which were relied upon by the trial court. 10. So far as the 1st submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned in my opinion, there is enough force in the submission. D and D/1 which were relied upon by the trial court. 10. So far as the 1st submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned in my opinion, there is enough force in the submission. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken me to the judgment under appeal as a whole and on a very careful perusal of the judgment under appeal I find, that right from paragraph 5 up to paragraph 18 the court of appeal below has discussed the defendants case and taking its own view has negatived the case of the contesting defendants. Thereafter in paragraph 19 it has dealt with the question of possession alone and though referring to the evidence of the plaintiff witnesses over the question of possession, it states:– "Although their testimonies are not altogether free from blemishes." Yet it said that they had by and large stood the test of cross-examination. And, abruptly in paragraph 20 it held that the plaintiffs had proved their title. 11. Nowhere the court of appeal below has dealt with the question of plaintiffs title, even though the onus to prove title, before the plaintiffs could ask for a decree, was on the plaintiffs. A perusal of the judgment of the court of appeal below shows that the entire approach of the lower appellate court was wrong in law. A mere perusal shows that the onus was shifted upon the contesting defendants to prove their case. The court of appeal below should have appreciated the position in law that the onus was upon the plaintiffs to prove title and possession both. The plaintiffs could not get a decree for the reliefs asked for on the weakness of the defendants' case. It is well settled that the plaintiffs must succeed or fail on the strength of its own case and not on the weakness of the defendants' case. 12. It is well settled that simply recording the finding of fact, without any discussion of the evidence, is no judgment at all. Such a judgment cannot be said to be a judgment in accordance with law. 12. It is well settled that simply recording the finding of fact, without any discussion of the evidence, is no judgment at all. Such a judgment cannot be said to be a judgment in accordance with law. The legislature has entrusted a very important duty to the first appellate court and it is for that court to decide finally all the questions of fact on which the disposal of the appeal depends, and it must also appear from the judgment of the lower court that it has made an honest endeavour to make a proper appraisement of the merits of the cases put forward by the parties. The judgment of the 1st appellate court, the court being a final court of fact, must show that it has applied its own mind to the evidence. 13. I have already stated above, that the finding of title in favour of the plaintiffs is such a finding, given by the court of appeal below, which is not based upon any discussion of any evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellants very rightly submitted that this finding was not binding in second appeal and I hold that the judgment is not in accordance with law; not only because the finding of title in favour of the plaintiffs is based on no evidence but also because the entire approach given by the court of appeal below is wrong in law–as it has thrown the entire onus on the contesting defendants, though the onus to prove the title and possession was initially upon the plaintiffs. 14. So far as the second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non–consideration of material documents is concerned, I am satisfied that the court of appeal below has also not taken into consideration some of the material documents including Exts. D and D/1, which were relied upon by the trial court. 15. It is well settled that if the 1st appellate court does not refer to important piece of evidence, the conclusions arrived at cannot be regarded as binding upon the High court in second appeal. In view of this settled law as well, I hold that there is enough force in the second submission also. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the court of appeal below are set aside. In view of this settled law as well, I hold that there is enough force in the second submission also. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the court of appeal below are set aside. The case is sent back to the court of appeal below for a fresh decision, after hearing the parties, on the materials already on the record. The court of appeal below, while deciding the appeal afresh will keep in mind the aforesaid well settled principles of law. However, in the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.