JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a second appeal against the judgment of learned Additional Commissioner dated 5-8-1972 by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 24-8-1971 by which the trial court dismissed the suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the State and Gaon Sabha but no one is present from the side of the respondent. 3. The facts of the case are that the suit u/s 220-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed by Akchhaibar Singh against State Govt. and Gaon Sabha for a declaration of sirdari right over the land in suit. He has based his case on the basis of patta by the then zamindar. 4. Four issues were framed in the trial court and the specific findings were given after discussing the evidence. 5. But the appellate court did not discuss all the points and has not given any reason for discording the reasons given by the trial court. The lower appellate court has also not given reasons for disagreeing with the finding given by the trial court. It is the duty of the appellate court, being the final authority on the question of fact to mention the points for determination and to give decision on those issues. The decision must be passed on the reasons. Hence the appellate court has to give reasons for determining the points in issues in suit. It cannot be said that he may pass any order in any manner. It is also provided under order 41 rule 31 of the C.P.C. which runs as follows :- Order 41 r. 31 "Contents, date and signature of judgment - The judgment of Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state - (a) the points for determination ; (b) the decision thereon ; (c) the reasons for the decision ; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled ; and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein. 6. Hence without going into the merits of the appeal after perusing the judgment itself by which the learned Additional Commissioner decreed the suit it appears that it is not a judgment in the eye of law. 7. 6. Hence without going into the merits of the appeal after perusing the judgment itself by which the learned Additional Commissioner decreed the suit it appears that it is not a judgment in the eye of law. 7. I, therefore, allow the appeal set aside the judgment of Additional Commissioner dated 5-8-1972 and remand the case to the lower appellate court for deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with law and on the basis observations made above. Cost easy.