P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 2 ) THE substantial question of law, which had been argued at length in the Second appeals is as hereunder: what is the effect of not formulating the points for consideration by the lower appellate court, as required by order 41 Rule 31 C. P. C? ( 3 ) THERE is no controversy between the parties that the Appellate Court had recorded the issues and had discussed the, evidence on record but had not framed the points for consideration. The counsel for the appellants with all vehemence had contended that though concurrent findings had been recorded, by virtue of non-framing of points for consideration, the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. The counsel representing the respondent, on the other hand, had placed strong reliance in Gorella durga Vara Prasad v. Indukuri Rama Raju and had contended that almost all the grounds raised in the appeal had been dealt with and hence, a mere omission to frame the point for consideration would not vitiate the judgment and decree by itself per se unless it is shown that injustice had been caused by non-consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record or therwise it is shown that the findings recorded are perverse. The learned counsel also brought to my notice that the matter was remanded once and additional issues were framed and in view of the same there is no point in making an order of remand in the present Second Appeal. ( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel and also perused the findings recorded by the court of first instance and also the Appellate Court. ( 5 ) THE case of the respondent-plaintiff is as hereunder: it is pleaded that he is the owner and actual cultivator of the land measuring ac. 4-20 guntas out of S. No. 200 situated towards southern side of the said survey number of Vampadu village. The suit relates to Ac. 0. 20 guntas of land. The plaintiff purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dt. 5-5-1966. After purchasing the land the plaintiff planted about 50 toddy trees in the southern side of the land purchased. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son and other defendants are the followers of defendant No. 1. 0. 20 guntas of land. The plaintiff purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dt. 5-5-1966. After purchasing the land the plaintiff planted about 50 toddy trees in the southern side of the land purchased. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son and other defendants are the followers of defendant No. 1. The 1st defendant is having land on the southern side adjoining the suit land. The defendants have no title or actual possession over the suit land and toddy trees at any time. The plaintiff has been cultivating the schedule land, and enjoying the toddy leaves since long time. When the plaintiff was ploughing the schedule land, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with a mala fide intention, trespassed into the suit land illegally, obstructed the plaintiff from cultivating the same on the ground that the suit land is part and parcel of their land also claimed ownership over the suit land and the toddy trees. The plaintiff approached the elders, and the advice of the elders was not heeded by the defendants. The defendants are bent upon to trespass into the suit land. Hence, the suit for declaration of his title over the suit land of Ac. 0. 20 gts. , and 50 toddy trees and for permanent injunction. ( 6 ) THE written statement was filed with the following averments: it is pleaded that defendants 1 to 6 are the holders, pattadars and actual possessors of the land to an extent of ac. 14. 28 guntas in S. No. 200 and 201 of the vempadu village. In the said land, 70 toddy trees are planted and grown by the defendants 1 to 6. The 3rd defendant is holding Ac. 2. 03 guntas of land of S. No. 200. The 1st defendant holds Ac. 6. 26 guntas of land in S. No. 210. Defendants 1 to 6 are having interest in the said toddy trees. The said 70 toddy trees do not belong to the plaintiff. It is false to say that the plaintiff planted 50 toddy trees in an extent of ac. 0. 20 guntas in S. No. 200. The said 50 toddy trees are in the land of the 3rd defendant. The cause of action as stated by the plaintiff is fictitious. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit toddy trees and the land. 0. 20 guntas in S. No. 200. The said 50 toddy trees are in the land of the 3rd defendant. The cause of action as stated by the plaintiff is fictitious. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit toddy trees and the land. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to these defendant. ( 7 ) INITIALLY, the following issues were framed. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the perpetual injunction? (2) To what relief? ( 8 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, 4 witnesses were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-10 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, 5 witnesses were examined and got marked exs. B-1 to B-7. The suit was initially dismissed and as against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal a. S. No. 1/85 on the file of District Judge, nalgonda and the same was allowed. An additional issue was framed which is as hereunder: whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title over Ac. 0. 20 guntas of land is S. No. 200 and 50 toddy trees standing therein? ( 9 ) THE Commissioner who was originally appointed had been again directed to go to the suit land and execute the warrant and the Commissioner submitted his fresh report again after duly executing the warrant of commission as per the directions given by the Appellate Court which was marked as ex. B-5-A and the Commissioner was further recalled and he was also further examined. D. W. 6 was examined in addition to the evidence already available on record. The court of first instance, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence had decreed the suit and aggrieved by the same, A. S. 32 of 1988 was preferred on the file of subordinate Judge, Miriyalaguda, which was dismissed. It is no doubt true that the respective issues framed by the court of first instance had been referred to and the findings recorded by the court of first instance, had been confirmed. Though the matter was not dealt with properly, it is not in controversy that all factual aspects had been considered at Paras 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment. Though the matter was not dealt with properly, it is not in controversy that all factual aspects had been considered at Paras 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Appellate Court carefully and the learned counsel representing the appellants also could not point out any serious omission in considering the relevant documentary evidence or oral evidence or any perversity in recording the reasons. However, it was seriously urged that the very non-compliance of Order-41, Rule-31 of the c. P. C. would vitiate the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court. It is no doubt true that normally, the Appellate Court is expected to frame the points for consideration and as a final court of fact is expected to decide all the factual aspects discussing in detail the oral and documentary evidence. However, on a careful reading of findings recorded by both the courts below, I am thoroughly satisfied that the Appellate Court though not in letter and spirit in substance had recorded findings relating to all the grounds raised and hence, the mere fact that the proper points for consideration had not been framed by itself may not vitiate the decree of the Appellate court. Strong reliance was also placed in veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal in relation to the limitations of interference by this court in Second Appeal. Except this point, no other question had been argued before this court by the counsel representing the parties. ( 10 ) IN view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I am not inclined to disturb the said findings on the sole ground of non-framing of points for consideration since the evidence had been appreciated by the Appellate Court also while confirming the findings of the trial court. Accordingly, the Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. No costs.