Honble YADAV, J. – Plaintiff-appellant Babulal has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9.10.92 passed by learned Additional Dist- rict Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Camp Phalodi whereby he has set aside the judgment and decree dated 3.11.88 passed by learned trial court and dismissed the suit for arrears of rent and eviction filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting. (2). The averments made in the written statement filed by Ladu Ram tenant- defendant No. 1 clearly indicates that he had admitted relationship of land lord and tenant between himself and plaintiff-appellant Babu Lal w.e.f. 1.03.78 at the rent of Rs. 40/- per month but denied the sub-letting and parting possession in favour of defendant respondent No. 2. It is also admitted in his written statement that he has not handed-over possession of the suit shop to the land lord-plaintiff-appellant but the same has been handed over to his brother Ghewar Chand. (3). Hasti Mal defendant-respondent No. 2 in his separate written statement averred that he has purchased the suit shop from Ghewar Chand through registered sale deed on 28.03.84 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. It is also alleged that he is coming in possession from the date of sale deed. He claims himself to be a bona fide purchaser of the suit shop. (4). On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court has framed as many as 10 issues, focussing the attention of the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. (5). After analytical discussion of each issue, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant on 3.11.88. (6). Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court only defendant-respondent No. 2, Hasti Mal filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate court whereas defendant-respondent No. 1 Ladu Ram has submitted to the decree passed by learned trial court. (7). Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (8). Perused the judgments and decree under appeal. (9). Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court only defendant-respondent No. 2, Hasti Mal filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate court whereas defendant-respondent No. 1 Ladu Ram has submitted to the decree passed by learned trial court. (7). Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (8). Perused the judgments and decree under appeal. (9). A close scrutiny of the judgment of learned lower appellate court reveals that it has set aside the findings of fact recorded by learned trial court in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions envisaged under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC with- out formulating points for determination involved in the appeal and without applying its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in detail by the learned trial court with reference to oral and documentary evidence on record. (10). The mandatory provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC clearly provides that the lower appellate court has to state in its judgment the points for determination while reversing the judgment of trial court in all fairness. The lower appellate courts in such appeals are expected to meet reasons given by trial courts in support of its findings and failure to do so in the present case by learned lower appellate court has resulted in miscarriage of justice. I am of the view that the lear- ned lower appellate court in the present case without formulating the points for determination involved in the appeal has reversed the findings recorded by learned trial court which tantamount substantial error of law and procedure. (11). It is evident from perusal of the judgment of learned trial court that it has recorded categorical findings of fact on issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to 10 in favour of plaintiff-appellant whereas issue No. 2 was decided against him. The aforesaid findings of fact recorded by learned trial court on the aforesaid issues are based on analytical discussion of the whole evidence on record whereas the learned lower appellate court reversed the findings of fact of the learned trial court merely upon some isolated pieces of evidence without meeting the cogent and convincing rea- sons given by the learned trial court on issues Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to 10. 1, 3 and 4 to 10. It has reversed the findings of learned trial court on its own assumptions and presumptions which in the present case tends to defeat the legislative intendments of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. (12). The finding recorded by learned lower appellate court on question of bonafide purchaser in favour of defendant-respondent No. 2 Hastimal for Rs. 8,000/- is not sustainable in view of the categorical findings recorded by learned trial court on issue Nos. 4, 6 and 7. (13). In arriving at the aforesaid finding of fact the learned trial court has discussed the statement of DW 3, Kastura Ram which has completely been ignored by the learned lower appellate court. The learned lower appellate court did not address itself as to why the defendant-tenant Ladu Ram has not handed over posse- ssion to the land-lord-plaintiff-appellant Babu Lal. The learned trial court while recording finding of fact on question of bona fide purchaser for consideration against defendant- respondent No. 2 has drawn adverse inference against him for withholding the best evidence namely Ghewar Chand but the learned lower appellate court ignored the same. It is not understandable under what circumstances the learned lower appellate court has not discussed the statement of Kastura Ram DW 3 who was adduced to prove defendant-respondent No. 2 Hastimal to be bona fide purchaser for value. The learned trial court has disbelieved the statement of DW 3 Kastura Ram to the effect that when Ladu Ram tenant handed-over vacant possession to Ghewar Chand of the disputed shop Ghewar Chand let out the shop to Kas- tura Ram DW 3 who remained in possession for two years then thereafter the shop was purchased by defendant-respondent No. 2. The aforesaid statement of DW 3 was disbelieved by trial court on the ground firstly that the defendant was not entitled to adduce evidence which he has not pleaded in his written statement and secondly DW 3 was found to be a liar. I do not think it proper to discuss on the merit or demerit of other evidence and circumstances which have been discussed by the learned trial court while recording its findings specially on issue No. 4, 6 and 7. (14). I do not think it proper to discuss on the merit or demerit of other evidence and circumstances which have been discussed by the learned trial court while recording its findings specially on issue No. 4, 6 and 7. (14). It is further to be noticed that learned trial court recorded findings on issues No. 8 and 9 to the effect that the burden of proof to prove these issues was upon the defendants but neither they have adduced evidence nor they press these issues before him, therefore, these issues were answered in negatived yet the learned lower appellate court held that non-impleadment of Ghewar Chand in the suit was fatal. (15). Now it must be taken to be well settled principle of law that statements of fact recorded in a judgment of a court law should not be allowed to be contra- dicted by statement at the Bar or by affidavit or other evidence See AIR 1982 SC 1249 (1). (16). As I propose to remand the case to the learned lower appellate court to decide the same afresh on merits, therefore, it would not be proper at this stage to discuss the merit or demerit of the findings of fact recorded by learned lower appe- llate court. In fact the findings recorded by the learned trial court deserve to be examined by the learned lower appellate court itself in the light of the following points for determination involved in the present case:– 1. WHETHER in a suit for ejectment filed on ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting where relationship of land lord and tenant is admitted an intricate question of ownership between plaintiff-land lord and his brother Ghewar Chand can be allowed to be raised by tenant and a person in possession? 2. WHETHER the learned lower appellate court was justified in holding that the present suit was not maintainable, without impleading Ghewar Chand, brother of plaintiff-appellant Babulal as a party and without claiming any relief for cancellation of sale- deed alleged to have been executed by Ghewar Chand in favour of defendant No. 2 Hastimal ? 3. WHETHER the learned trial court was justified to hold that Hastimal defendant No. 2 is not a bonafide purchaser of the suit shop? (17). 3. WHETHER the learned trial court was justified to hold that Hastimal defendant No. 2 is not a bonafide purchaser of the suit shop? (17). It has made clearly that apart from the aforesaid points for determination framed by this court if other points for determination are also brought to the notice of learned lower appellate court, it would be at liberty to formulate the same and decide it in accordance with law. (18) As a result of the aforementioned discussion the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate court is hereby set aside and the instant Second Appeal is allowed. The case is remanded back to the learned lower appellate court, to decide the same on merits afresh keeping in view, the observations made in the body of the judgment. Costs easy. _