JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal by the successors-in-interest of the defendant Mofizuddin Ahmed is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th May, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Goalpara (now Civil Judge) in Title Appeal No. 5/1999, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondents/ plaintiffs has been allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22nd July, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 1 (now Munsiff), Goalpara in Title Suit No. 24/1995. The present respondents as plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Goalpara for declaration of joint right, title and interest with the defendant in respect of the land described in Schedules-A, B and C; for declaration that the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 16 Lechas of land being the share in Schedule-B land, leaving the other land in the said schedule to the defendant or 5 Lechas from Schedule-C and 11 Lechas from Schedule-B and also for partition, contending inter-alia that the entire suit land originally belonged to Jallatun Nessa, wife of Mohiuddin and after her death 2/3rd of the entire suit land fell in the share of her son Mohizuddin (original defendant) and remaining 1/3rd to her daughter Hamida Khatun. It has further been pleaded that Hamida Khatun died leaving behind the plaintiff No. 1, who is the daughter and four sons, namely Hadi Hussain, Sariful Hussain (plaintiff No. 5), Mir Hussain (plaintiff No. 6) and Amir Hussain (plaintiff No. 7). The further pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that Hadi Hussain died leaving behind his wife Pato Khatun (plaintiff No. 2) and one son and one daughter, namely Iftekhar Hussain (plaintiff No. 3) and Asida Khatun (plaintiff No. 4). According to the plaintiffs, they have inherited 1/3rd of the suit land, which fell in the share of Hamida Khatun, daughter of Jallatun Nessa. It has further been pleaded that when the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 wanted their shares of the land to plaintiff No. 1, though they requested the defendant to partition the land as all are enjoying the said property jointly, the defendant refused to partition the same contending that Hamida Khatun had no share over the property left by Jallatun Nessa, which necessitated institution of the suit. 2. 2 to 7 wanted their shares of the land to plaintiff No. 1, though they requested the defendant to partition the land as all are enjoying the said property jointly, the defendant refused to partition the same contending that Hamida Khatun had no share over the property left by Jallatun Nessa, which necessitated institution of the suit. 2. The original defendant on receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed his written statement contending inter-alia that Jallatun Nessa, his mother, gifted the entire land in his favour in presence of 3(three) witnesses and putting him into possession. The defendant claimed that such gift was an oral gift. It has further been pleaded in the written statement that since the defendant is in possession of the property for more than 31(thirty-one) years to the exclusion of all other persons, namely the plaintiffs, his right over the property has ripened by adverse possession. 3. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for determination:- (1) Whether the plaintiffs have cause of action for filing this suit? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (4) Whether the plaintiffs have joint title to the suit lands described in schedule A, B & C along with the defendant? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 4(four) bighas in the lands described in Schedule-A? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 16(sixteen) lechas share in the lands described in schedule-B & C and the plaintiffs are entitled to get said 16(sixteen) lechas from schedule-B leaving the entire land of schedule-C for the defendant? (7) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to? 4. The plaintiffs in support of their claim examined 4(four) witnesses apart from proving 5(five) documents, namely Exhibits-1 to 5. The defendant examined 3(three) witnesses and did not proved any document. 5. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, upon appreciation of the evidences on record and upon hearing the parties vide judgment dated 22nd July, 1998 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that the suit property was gifted by Jallatun Nessa, the mother of the defendant, in his favour and as such, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right, title and interest over any part of the suit land. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred the aforesaid appeal, which has been allowed by the first Appellate Court by holding that the defendant could not prove the gift allegedly made by Jallatun Nessa in his favour, as required under the Muhammadan Law. Hence, the present appeal. 6. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 18th June, 2002 on the following substantial question of law:- Whether the learned Court below erred in law in not holding that the gift in question was valid, fulfilling all the requirements prescribed under the Muhammadan Law? 7. During pendency of the second appeal, the original defendant/appellant died and in his place, the present appellants were substituted as legal heirs and representatives vide order dated 23rd July, 2004, as right to sue survived on them. 8. I have heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Wise Imran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. Referring to the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that though the Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 22nd July, 1998 has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that a valid gift was made by Jallatun Nessa in favour of the defendant, the first Appellate Court has set aside the said finding without discussing the evidences on record and allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It has been submitted that since the first Appellate Court is the final Court on facts and law, it is required to discuss all the evidences, both oral and documentary, more so, when it is a judgment of reversal. The learned counsel submits that for recording the finding that there was no valid oral gift by Jallatun Nessa in favour of the defendant, the entire evidences adduced by the parties are required to be looked into and discussed, so as to ascertain as to whether the ingredients to constitute a valid gift could be proved by the defendants, which having not been done by the first Appellate Court, the appeal may be remitted to the first Appellate Court for deciding the same afresh on the basis of the evidences already on record. 10. 10. The learned counsel submits that the defendant by adducing the evidence of 3(three) witnesses, which includes the defendant himself, could prove the oral gift of the suit property by Jallatun Nessa in favour of the defendant, apart from the acceptance of the gift by the defendant and delivery of possession, as required under Section 149 of the Muhammadan Law, which evidence, however, have not at all been discussed by the first Appellate Court while setting aside the finding recorded by the Trial Court. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, has submitted that though the defendant in the written statement has taken the plea of adverse possession, the said plea is not available to the defendant, he being one of the co-owners of the suit property alongwith the plaintiffs. It has also been submitted that since the Trial Court has wrongly decided the issue relating to the gift, on the basis of the evidences adduced by the parties, though no specific issues in that regard has been framed, the first Appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, apart from the judgment passed by the Trial Court. 13. In the instant appeal, it is not in dispute that the entire suit property originally belonged to Jallatun Nessa, wife of Mohiuddin, who died leaving behind one son and one daughter, namely Mofizuddin Ahmed, the defendant, and Hamida Khatun. The plaintiff No. 1 is the daughter of Hamida Khatun. The plaintiff Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the wife, son and daughter of Hadi Hussain, one of the four sons of Hamida Khatun and plaintiff Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are other 3 sons of Hamida Khatun. It is also not in dispute that in the absence of any gift, as pleaded by the defendants in the written statement, 2/3rd property left behind by Jallatun Nessa would devolved on the defendants and 1/3rd on Hamida Khatun and the said 1/3rd would devolve on the plaintiffs, they being heirs of Hamida Khatun. 14. It is also not in dispute that in the absence of any gift, as pleaded by the defendants in the written statement, 2/3rd property left behind by Jallatun Nessa would devolved on the defendants and 1/3rd on Hamida Khatun and the said 1/3rd would devolve on the plaintiffs, they being heirs of Hamida Khatun. 14. As noticed above, the plaintiffs claimed 1/3rd of the property, which fell in the share of Hamida Khatun, the daughter of Jallatun Nessa. The said claim has been refuted by the defendant by taking the plea that the entire suit property was gifted by oral gift by Jallatun Nessa as required under the Muhammadan Law and hence, the plaintiffs would have no right, title and interest over any part of the land left behind by Jallatun Nessa. Since the defendant is one of the co-owners of the property, he cannot claim the adverse possession as against the other co-owners, his possession over the property being on behalf of other co-owners also. It appears from the judgment and decrees passed by both the Courts below that though the defendant has taken the plea of oral gift by Jallatun Nessa in his favour, no issue, however, has been framed on that plea. The parties even in the absence of such issue relating to the gift or its validity, led evidence and hence non framing of the specific issue on the gift would not cause any prejudice and that cannot be the ground for interference of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 15. The only question, which requires determination, is whether there is a valid gift by Jallatun Nessa in favour of the defendant, for which certain amount of evidences were also adduced by the parties. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that the defendant could not prove that there was a valid gift within the meaning of Section 149 of the Muhommedan Law. The said finding, however, has been disturbed by the first Appellate Court, without discussing the evidences on record. 16. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC requires formulation of points for determination and decision thereon and also the reasons for the decision, apart from the relief to which the appellant is entitled to where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied. The said finding, however, has been disturbed by the first Appellate Court, without discussing the evidences on record. 16. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC requires formulation of points for determination and decision thereon and also the reasons for the decision, apart from the relief to which the appellant is entitled to where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied. The first Appellate Court being the final Courts of fact and law is required to discuss all the evidences on record as adduced by the parties, both oral and documentary, more so when such judgment is a judgment of reversal of the finding recorded by the Trial Court. The first Appellate Court, in the instant case, as noticed above, has reversed the finding recorded by the Trial Court relating to the gift, without discussing the evidences on record, though altogether 7(seven) witnesses were examined by both the parties. 17. In view of the above, while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, the appeal is remitted to the first Appellate Court for deciding the same afresh after hearing both the parties and on the basis of the evidences already on record. Having regard to the year of filing of the appeal, the first Appellate Court is directed to decide the said appeal within a period of 2(two) months from the date of appearance of the parties as fixed by this judgment. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge, No. 1 at Goalpara on 14th September, 2012. 18. The appeal is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs. The Registry is directed to send down the records to the first Appellate Court so as to reach the said Court on or before 27th August, 2012. Appeal allowed.