Judgment Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.2.89 passed in Title Appeal No. 26/84 /42/S7 by Sri B.N.P. Singh, 3rd Additional District Judge, Nawadah. Whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 17th April, 1979 passed in Title Suit No. 14/68/29 of 1976 by Sri Kedar Nath Ambastha, Munsif, Nawadah and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned Advocate of the appellants submitted that this case has got a very chequered history as firstly the suit was decided by the Munsif IIIrd, Gaya, on 24th June, 1972. whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part and against the said judgment and decree the defendants-appellants preferred appeal being Title Appeal No. 13 of 1975/103 of 1972 D.J. which was heard by the 4th Additional District Judge, Gaya, and by judgment dated 13th December, 1975, the said appeal was disposed of and by the said judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge, remitted back the suit to the learned lower court for framing issue on the Question of adverse possession and for giving its findings there-on after giving an opportunity to the parties to give evidence, if any, on the said issue. The learned Advocate further submitted that the judgment of Title Appeal No. 13 of 1975/103 of 1972(D.J.) passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Gaya, will show that the judgment and decree dated 24.6.72 passed in Title Suit No. 14 of 1968 by the Munsif, IIIrd, Gaya, was not set aside meaning thereby that the findings of the Munsif IIIrd, Gaya, on other issues remained in tact. What the learned Court of the Additional District Judge wanted from the Court of the Munsif to do was that he ordered the learned Munsif to frame additional issue on the point of adverse possession and after examining the witnesses of both the parties on that point give its findings on the point of adverse possession and accordingly, the learned Munsif. Nawadah by his judgment dated 17th April, 1979, did the same thing as asked for by the learned Additional District Judge, and gave his findings on the point of adverse possession without touching the findings of the Munsif IIIrd, Gaya, on other issues given in the judgment dated 24th June. 1972, in Title Suit No. 14 of 1968 meaning thereby that the findings of Munsif IIIrd, Gaya, on other issues remained in tact. 3. Learned Advocate further submitted that perusal of Judgment dated 24th June, 1972, of Munsif IIIrd, Gaya, will show that before the trial Court as many as five issues were framed and the learned Munsif by his judgment dated 24th June, 1972, decided all the issues. He further submitted that by judgment dated 13th December, 1975, of the 4th Additional District Judge, Gaya, additional issue on the point of adverse possession was framed by the learned Munsif and the learned Munsif decided that issue against the appellants by judgment dated 17th April, 1979. The learned Advocate of the appellants submitted that the judgment of the first appellate court will show that the first appellate court did not touch all the issues involved in the suit and decided by the trial court. He submitted that the first appellate court being the last court on facts is bound to give its findings on all the issues and points decided by the learned trial Court and by not doing so the first appellate court has committed illegality and, therefore this appeal should be remanded back. 4. From the perusal of the judgment of Munsif IIIrd, Gaya, dated 24th June, 1972, it appears that the trial court had framed as many as five issues in the case which are as follows: I. Is the suit as framed maintainable? II. Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit? III. Has the plaintiff derived right, title and interest in the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 7.2.1944 executed in her favour by defendant No. 1 and his father? IV. Has the plaintiff proved that she came in possession over the suit land and house thereon after the execution of sale deed dated 7.2.1944? V. Is the plaintiff entitled to get relief or reliefs as claimed? 5. IV. Has the plaintiff proved that she came in possession over the suit land and house thereon after the execution of sale deed dated 7.2.1944? V. Is the plaintiff entitled to get relief or reliefs as claimed? 5. It appears from the perusal of the judgment dated 13th December, 1975 passed in Title Appeal No. 13 of 1975/103 of 72 (D.J.) that by that judgment the trial Court was directed to frame additional issue on the point of adverse possession and to give its finding on that issue which the trial court did and thus there were altogether six issues involved in the suit. But, it appears that the first appellate court by its judgment dated 9th February, 1989, did not give its findings on all the issues involved in the suit. 6. It is settled principle of law that the first appellate court is the last court of facts and, as such, the first appellate court is bound to give its finding on all the facts and issues which are involved in the suit and I am of the opinion that by not doing so the first appellate court has committed error in law. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it is a fit case for remand. 7. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 9th February, 1989, passed in Title Appeal No. 26/84 /42/87 by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Nawadah, are hereby set aside and the appeal is remanded back to the first appellate court for giving fresh finding on all the issues framed by the trial court as well as on additional issue of adverse possession. 8. In the result this Second Appeal is allowed.