This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.2J980 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, North Lakhimpur where by the defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1978 of the learned trial Court was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff respondent had filed the suit for declaration of her right to the Und in suit described in the schedule annexed with the plaint and for recovery of its khas possession, on the alle­gations, that the land in suit in area 4 bighas 18 lechas, with other lands originally belonged to her father late Beh Ram Koch, who because of his old age had been living with the plaintiff The plaintiff had been in possession of the land of her father who had relinquished its possession. After the death of her father the plaintiff had/obtained conversion of the annual patta of the land to periodic patta and her name was mutated by order dated 1.10.74. The plaintiff's name was also recorded in the chitha register as periodic patta holder of the land. The plaintiff's name was erased and the name of the defendant was entered against the land in suit. The plaintiff filed objection against interpolation to which the defendant also filed objection wherein he stated that tie had purchased the land in suit from her father and had been in possession of the land. The revenue authorities made some enquiries and the matter was pending. The defendant however, took forcible possession of the land in suit. Hence, the suit was filed. 3. The defendant contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that he had purchased the land in suit from the plaintiffs' father in 19o9 and since then had been in possession. His name had been mutated in the records and since the matter was pending before the revenue authorities, the Court should not grant the relief prayed. Necessary parties had not been impJeaded. The suit was liable to be dismissed. 4, The learned trial Court had framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in Jaw ? 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? 3. Whether the plaintiff has right over the suit land ? 4. Whether the plaintiff got the suit land mutated in her name by collusion with Mondal during settlement operation ? 5. Whether the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff? 6. 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? 3. Whether the plaintiff has right over the suit land ? 4. Whether the plaintiff got the suit land mutated in her name by collusion with Mondal during settlement operation ? 5. Whether the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff? 6. Whether the name of the defendant was entered in the chitha of the land? 7. To what relief is the plaintiff e titled ? The learned trial Court by judgment dated 31.8.78, held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of any party > the plaintiff had right over the suit land, the name of the defendant had been entered in the chitha and the plaintiff's name had been erased against the land in suit without any authority, that on the date of the suit the defendant was in possession having had dispossessed the plaintiff and accordingly the suit was decreed. In appeal by the defendant the learned appellate Court below by judgment impugned in this appeal affirmed the finding that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of parties, that the plaintiff had right, title to the land in suit and that the defendant had no such right. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved, the defendant has come in appeal, and Shri S.N. Chetia, learned counsel appearing on his behalf has submitted that the learned appellate Court below had not formulated the points for determination and the matter had not been properly dealt with by the learned appellate Court below and the impugned judgment was not in accordance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereafter referred as 'the Code' and the matter should therefore be remanded to the learned appellate Court below. Shri Chetia, has also submitted that in view of the provision of section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, hereinafter referred as 'the Regulation' since the matter of patta to the land in suit was pending enquiry before the revenue authorities, the civil Court had on jurisdiction to entertain the suit and ought to have stayed its hearing that the suit was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties and that Issue No.5 on possession of the land was not correctly decided. Shri Chetia has therefore submitted that the matter should be remanded to the Court be low. 6. Shri Chetia has therefore submitted that the matter should be remanded to the Court be low. 6. Shri K. Sarma, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent has refuted the submissions on behalf of the appellant and has submitted that the two Courts below have recorded the finding of fact that the plaintiff had right title to the suit land and that defendant had no such right that there was no reason to reopen the said finding of fact in this second appeal. Shri Sarma has accordingly submitted that there was no ground at all for interference with the impugned judgment and decree. 7. I have considered the submissions for the parties and the judgments of the learned Courts below. 8. In so far as the submission regarding jurisdiction of the civil Court was concerned, no such plea had been taken by the defendant in written statement. All that was pleaded was that since the matter was under consideration before the revenue authorities, the civil Court should stay the suit. However, even if the submission is considered, it has no merit, for the reason that section 154 of the Regulation prevents the civil Court from enquiring into a matter pertaining to settlement of land etc. The plaintiffs' case was that she had been granted the .settlement of land and that against the land in suit, her name had wrongly been erased arid the name of the defendant entered and she had been dispossessed. The plaintiff therefore had filed the suit for declaration of her right title and for recovery of possession. The suit therefore was not in respect of settlement of land made by the revenue authorities and as such it could not be barred under section 154 said above. Shri Chetia has submitted that the revenue authorities were looking into the matter, had taken initiative and accordingly the civil Court should not have proceeded with the matter. the contention is not acceptable because the question raised ii the suit tould not be dealt with by the revenue authorities, who have it appears stayed the proceeding before them. In any case, the civil suit could not have been stayed just because the revenue authorities had been looking into allegations of some interpolation in entries in the revenue records. the contention is not acceptable because the question raised ii the suit tould not be dealt with by the revenue authorities, who have it appears stayed the proceeding before them. In any case, the civil suit could not have been stayed just because the revenue authorities had been looking into allegations of some interpolation in entries in the revenue records. In my opinion, therefore the submission on behalf of the appellant that the civil Court had no jurisdiction is not tenable and is accordingly rejected. 9. The next submission that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, was a matter on which both the learned Courts below have held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of any party. The plaintiff had claimed the land in suit in her own right by settlement after the death of her father and the claim was not based on inheritance from her father. The fact that deceased Ben Ram Koch, the father of the plaintiff had left some other daughters would therefore not make the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the said daughters or their heirs. The findings of learned Courts below on the question therefore were correct. 10. Shrt S. N. Cbetia, learned counsel for the appellant has sub­mitted that the learned appellate Court betlow did not formulate the points for determination and in view of the provision of Rule 31 of Order 41 of the Code it was not 'judgment in accordance with law'. Shri Chetia has referred to M Kotiab vs. i. Pouiiah, AIR 1988 A.P. 38 , in which the judgment of the first appellate Court was set aside and the matter was remanded because the appellate Court below had reversed the decree of trial Court without having considered the matter properly. 11. While it is true that the learned appellate Court below in the impugned judgment did not formulate the points for determination in appeal, the learned appellate Court below had properly considered the questions raised systematically and it could not be said that the judgment of the learned appellate Court below was not judgment in accordance with law just because the points for determination had not been formulated. The evidence on record was discussed. The questions raised had been duly and properly considered and questions were determined. The submission for the appellant therefore has no merit. - 12. The evidence on record was discussed. The questions raised had been duly and properly considered and questions were determined. The submission for the appellant therefore has no merit. - 12. In so far as the contention that Issue No. 5 was not properly decided it may be noted that the suit was for recovery of khas possession. The plaintiff has pleaded that she had been dispossessed by the defendant. As a matter of fact when the defendant asserted he had been in possession and the plaintiffs' case was for recovery of possession on the allegation that she had been dispossessed, the issue did not really arise, for on the date, the suit had been filed, the plaintiff was admittedly not in possession. I, therefore tee no error in the finding of the Courts below on issue No. 5 where the Courts below have held that the defendant version of possession since 1969 was not correct and that the plaintiff version that the defendant had dispossessed her some time in 1975 was correct. The learned trial Court had properly discussed the evidence and for reasons recorded held that the plaintiffs' version about dispossession was correct. The learned appellate Court below considered the question and confirmed the finding that the plaintiff had been dispossessed by the defendant as was stated by the plaintiff, j, therefore find no error in the findings recorded by the learned Courts below and accordingly repel the contention. 13. Shri S. N. Chetia, learned counsel for the defendant has argued that the defendant appellant was entitled to the protection of section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act. The submission is not tenable because the annual patta land was not transferable and even if he had taken transfer from plaintiffs' father, the land then being annual patta land after the death of plaintiffs' father, the defendant had no right. Besides the plaintiff did not claim the right to the land through her father but by settlement of the land with her after the death of her father. The provisions of section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act were therefore not attracted on the facts of this case. 14. Besides the plaintiff did not claim the right to the land through her father but by settlement of the land with her after the death of her father. The provisions of section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act were therefore not attracted on the facts of this case. 14. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below that the plaintiff had right and title to the land in suit and that the defendant did not have any such right and title for reasons recorded by the parties was sound ard correct and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this apneal fails and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.