JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral): This regular second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 31.7.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 138-N/2000 whereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2000 passed by learned Sub Judge (II), Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 112/1995. 2. The father of the plaintiffs/respondents late Sh. Kishan Chand, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is co-owner in possession to the extent of half share in Khata No. 252 min, half share in land bearing Khata No. 70 min, half share in the land bearing Khata No. 253, situated in village and Mohal Indpur, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. The change of entry in the revenue record from tenancy in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant in equal shares to that of the defendant was wrong and had been effected in active connivance, collusion and participation of the revenue staff and the previous owners. This was without any notice of intimation to the plaintiff and at his back without following any legal procedure established by law and was in violation of the basic principles of natural justice and equity. It was alleged that the suit land was being cultivated by the forefathers of the plaintiff and defendant. 3.The suit was contested by the defendant/appellant by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and limitation were raised. It was further pleaded that the defendant was in the cultivating possession of the suit land as owner. The plaintiff had never been in possession of the same. It was further alleged that the defendant had been cultivating the suit land for the last 22 years initially as a tenant and thereafter as owner. The detailed submissions were made with respect to the proceedings before the revenue court which are not essential for determination of the present appeal. 4.On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 6.12.1995 framed the following issues: 1.Whether the parties are joint owners in possession in equal share of the suit land? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction prayed for? OPP 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction prayed for? OPP 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5.Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 6. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD7.Whether the defendant has been cultivating the suit land separately since 1971 previously as a tenant and after the enforcement of Land Reforms Act, as owner, as alleged? OPD8. Relief. 5. Vide detailed judgment dated 23.11.2000; the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned lower Appellate court, who vide its judgment and decree dated 31.7.2002 was pleased to set-aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was ordered to be decreed. It is this judgment and decree, which is under appeal filed by the appellant/defendant before this Court. 6. On 5.3.2003 this Court was pleased to admit the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 1.Whether the suit of the plaintiff/respondent as laid was not within time? 2.Whether the suit as laid is not within the jurisdiction of the civil court? 3.Whether there has been any misreading of evidence by the two Courts below and the admissions made by the plaintiff/respondent have been admitted? 7.I have heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent and with their able assistance, gone through the records of the case. Substantial question of law No. 1: 8. There is no material available on the record as to how the suit of the plaintiff is not within time. It is settled position of law that the cause of action would only accrue to a person when his right, title or interest over the property is infringed or interfered with in any manner. In the present case, it is proved on record that the plaintiff approached the Court when one of the defendant actually threatened to take forcible possession of the suit land from him. In the present case, it is proved on record that the plaintiff approached the Court when one of the defendant actually threatened to take forcible possession of the suit land from him. The mere fact that there is entry of mutation in the name of the defendant would not furnish any cause of action to the plaintiff since it is settled law that the mutation does not confer any title. In Smt. Sawarni vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and others AIR 1996 SC 2823 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “7 Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.” Substantial question of law No. 2: 9. The dispute in the present case is purely a civil dispute between the two parties claiming themselves to be the tenants over the suit land and therefore, does not come within the purview of Section 112 of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Therefore, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the present case. Substantial question of law No. 3: 10.The learned lower Appellate Court has not even made a whisper to the oral evidence led by the parties and by cryptic order has reversed the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the first Appellate court, therefore, must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by the reasons, on all the issues raised in the appeal. It is the duty of the learned first Appellate Court to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties before recording the findings. 11.In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRS (2001) 3 SCC 179 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “15. It is the duty of the learned first Appellate Court to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties before recording the findings. 11.In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRS (2001) 3 SCC 179 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “15. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that it has extensively dealt with the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties for deciding the issues on which the parties went to trial. It also found that in support of his plea of adverse possession on the disputed land, the defendant did not produce any documentary evidence while the oral evidence adduced by the defendant was conflicting in nature and hence unworthy of reliance. The first appellate court has, in a very cryptic manner, reversed the finding on question of possession and dispossession as alleged by the plaintiff as also on the question of adverse possession as pleaded by the defendant. The appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions putforth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. The task of an appellate court affirming the findings of the trial Court is an easier one. The appellate court agreeing with the view of the trial court need not restate the effect of the evidence or 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 suffice (See Girijanandini Devi v.Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 . We would, however, like to sound a note of caution. Expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate court for shirking the duty cast on it. While writing a judgment of reversal the appellate court must remain conscious of two principles. We would, however, like to sound a note of caution. Expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate court for shirking the duty cast on it. While writing a judgment of reversal the appellate court must remain conscious of two principles. Firstly, the findings of fact based on conflicting evidence arrived at by the trial court must weigh with the appellate court, more so when the findings are based on oral evidence recorded by the same Presiding Judge who authors the judgment. This certainly does not mean that when an appeal lies on facts, the appellate court is not competent to reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge. As a matter of law if the appraisal of the evidence by the trial Court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the appellate court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact. (See Madhusudan Das v. Narayanibai (1983) 1 SCC 35 ). The rule is – and it is nothing more than a rule of practice – that when there is conflict of oral evidence of the parties on any matter in issue and the decision hinges upon the credibility of witnesses, then unless there is some special feature about the evidence of a particular witness which has escaped the trial Judge’s notice or there is a sufficient balance of improbability to displace his opinion as to where the credibility lie, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of the trial Judge on a question of fact. (See Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh, AIR 1951 SC 120 ). Secondly, while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate Court had discharged the duty expected of it. We need only remind the first appellate courts of the additional obligation cast on them by the scheme of the present Section 100 substituted in the Code. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate Court had discharged the duty expected of it. We need only remind the first appellate courts of the additional obligation cast on them by the scheme of the present Section 100 substituted in the Code. The first appellate Court continues, as before, to be a final court of facts; pure findings of fact remain immune from challenge before the High Court in second appeal. Now the first appellate court is also a final court of law in the sense that its decision on a question of law even if erroneous may not be vulnerable before the High Court in second appeal because the jurisdiction of the High Court has now ceased to be available to correct the errors of law or the erroneous findings of the first appellate court even on questions of law unless such question of law be a substantial one.” 12.In view of the detailed principles and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari (supra), it can safely be concluded that the learned lower Appellate Court has not adhered to these while deciding the First Appeal. Consequently, I have no option but to remand appeal back to the learned lower Appellate Court for decision afresh. The learned lower Appellate Court is expected to discharge its duty in accordance with law and more particularly as per the guidelines and principles laid down in the case of Santosh Hazari (supra). 13.The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 11.4.2014. Taking into consideration the fact that the suit was presented on 15.2.1995, the learned lower Appellate Court is requested to decide the appeal at the earliest at any event and not later than 31.5.2014. 14.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs