This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of a plot of land covered by Annual Patta No. 52. One Shamlal Nunia, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff died in the year 1960-61 leaving the plaintiff alone as his heir. The plaintiff occupied and possessed the land by right of inheritance and on payment of the premium got the suit land converted to periodic patta land in his name vide order dated 13.5.63. The defendant had no residential accommodation and as such approached the plaintiff to allow them to reside in the house as described in the schedule of the plaint as a permissive occupier. Taking advantage of their stay in the house in question the defendants forcibly occupied the plot of land as described in schedule 'Ka' of the plaint. It was further learnt by the plaintiff that the defendants got their names mutated in respect of the suit land on the basis of purchase and got the separate patta in collusion with Lat Mndal. The plaintiff claimed that there was no sale of any land to them and as such the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the plot of land as mentioned in schedule e 'Ka' and 'Kha' of the plaint and for delivery of vacant khas possession by evicting the defendants there from land for a further declaration that the mutation made in the names of defendants is void. The defendant filed a written statement in addition to the usual lease, the defence taken up was that he is actual pattadar of the land and the patta of the land was issued in the name of defendant No. 1. The further case was that the father of the defendant No. 1 and the father of the / plaintiff were brothers. The father of the defendant No. 1, Ram Rup died while the defendant No. 1 was minor and the defendant No. 1 was brought up by late Shamlal Nunia and the suit land fell in the share of defendant No. 1 and accordingly the revenue patta was issued in his name. 2. The father of the defendant No. 1, Ram Rup died while the defendant No. 1 was minor and the defendant No. 1 was brought up by late Shamlal Nunia and the suit land fell in the share of defendant No. 1 and accordingly the revenue patta was issued in his name. 2. A number of issues were framed and the plaintiff examined 2 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents while the defendant did not examine any witness, but produced certain documents which are public documents and they were marked as Ext XI X2 and X5. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Munsiff decreed the such as prayed for. The learned Munsiff found that the original number of the Annual Patta was 59 and not 52 and it was this Annual Patta 59 which was included under PP 72 and portion of which subsequently included in PP 114. It was found by the learned Munsiff that the oral evidence together with Ext 2 abundantly made it clear that original owner of the plot of land measuring 8 bighas 4 kathas 3 lechas was one Shamlal Nunia, father of the plaintiff and the said plot of land was converted to PP 72. It was further found that the plaintiff is in possession of the land as described in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint and the other portion was in possession of the defendant. The learned Munsiff found title in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly the suit was decreed. There was an appeal and the learned lower appellate Court without discussing the evidence both oral and documentary reversed the judgment and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 3. Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC provides what should be contained in the judgment of an appellate Court. They are - (i) points for determination; (ii) the decision thereon; (Hi) the reasons for the decision; and (iv) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. The provisions of Rule 31 are to be complied with in a strict manner when the lower appellate Court reverses the judgment of the trial Court. The provisions of Rule 31 are to be complied with in a strict manner when the lower appellate Court reverses the judgment of the trial Court. The judgment of the lower appellate Court must record the decision and give its own reason of the findings arrived at by him to reverse the findings of the trial Court, otherwise such a judgment can be interfered with in exercise of the power under second appellate jurisdiction inasmuch as the findings arrived at by the appellate Court in such a situation cannot be deemed to be findings of facts. It is imperative that the d appellate Court should state the reasons for its decision. It is further incumbent on the final Court of fact while reversing the decision to meet the reasons of the trial Court and to indicate its own reason for its own conclusion. It is the duty of the appellate Court to consider independently the entire facts and the law and give its own independent findings, reasons should be given not only when the decree is set aside or varied, but even it is confirmed, but the later case reasons e may not be so elaborate. Even in concurring judgment, oral evidence should be summarised and reasons must be given for accepting or rejecting it. The Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 1124 (Girinanandini Devi vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhury) pointed out as follows : "We are unable to hold that the learned Judged of the High Court did not, as is contended before us, consider the evidence. It is not the duty of the appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence or it reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court. Expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffices." 4. Further there is no justification that the appellate Court should interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court unless there is wrong appreciation of evidence and findings of fact is not based on the materials on record. That is what is lacking in the instant case. Further there is no justification that the appellate Court should interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court unless there is wrong appreciation of evidence and findings of fact is not based on the materials on record. That is what is lacking in the instant case. Accordingly, the appellate judgment dated 7.4.1993 passed in TA 57 of 1991 by the learned Assistant District Judge, Nagaon (now Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagaon) shall stand quashed and set aside and this matter shall now go back to the appellate Court to hear the matter afresh and to decide the appeal in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the appellate Court on 21.12.1998 to receive further instruction in the matter.