JUDGMENT Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard learned Counsel of the second appellant Smt. Rekha Goyal, it transpires that plot ad measuring 167.22 square metre (agricultural in nature) was sold by its original owner Dalip singh to Rajbir Singh, defendant no. 1 on 6.5.2008. Cheque issued by Rajbir Singh in consideration of their sale deed to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- was dishonoured. So, Dalip Singh filed an Original Suit No. 542 of 2008 for cancellation of such sale deed. Even before the name of Rajbir Singh could be mutated in the revenue record, the same plot was resold by Rajbir Singh to Smt. Rekha Goyal on 5.6.2008, almost before a month of the earlier sale deed. Smt. Rekha Goyal was the subsequent purchaser and her name was mutated in the revenue records in place of Dalip Singh. In the Original Suit No. 542 of 2008, though cancellation of the original sale deed dated 6.5.2008 was sought, but no cancellation of the subsequent sale deed in favour of Smt. Rekha Goyal was sought. First appeal was also lost by the parties. The net result would have been that if the original sale deed dated 6.5.2008 has been cancelled, then Smt. Rekha Goyal subsequent purchaser would not claim any title over the property in question. Learned Counsel of the second appellant Smt. Rekha Goyal has argued that since the nature of the land was agricultural in nature, so the suit for cancellation of the sale deed could have been adjudicated by the revenue court and not by the Civil Judge and this question was raised in the trial stage and decided by the learned Civil Judge, but the same has not been touched by the first appellate court. Another argument put forth by the learned Counsel is that learned first appellate court has not framed any point for determination, which is mandatory under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code. So, either it was duty of the learned first appellate court to express its finding on each and every point or issue framed by the trial court or to frame the points for determination by its own. The first appellate court lacks in compliance of the spirit of the law in this regard. Further, this Court does not want to discuss anything more. The appeal is admitted for hearing. The first appellate court lacks in compliance of the spirit of the law in this regard. Further, this Court does not want to discuss anything more. The appeal is admitted for hearing. Effect and operation of both the impugned judgments passed by the courts below shall remain stayed during the pendency of this second appeal. Stay application (CLMA 10546 of 2014) stands disposed of accordingly. Following substantial questions of law are framed:- (A) Whether suit filed by plaintiff not a recorded tenure holder, for cancellation of sale deed with respect to the agriculture land was cognizable before the Civil Court in view of specific bar contained under section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act ? (B) Whether once sale deed was executed and registered and title passed over to defendant on completion of sale as per section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, even consideration remains unpaid the effect would be the unpaid amount shall remain charge on the property in view of section 55 (4) (b) of Transfer of Property Act, but the same cannot effect the title of defendant over the property ? (C) Whether judgment & decree passed by lower appellate court can be sustained for want of framing and deciding points for determination as per Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. ? (D) Whether oral evidence with regard to possession could have been considered and relied upon contradicting the terms of written document in view of section 91 & 92 of Indian Evidence Act ? Issue notice to the respondents. Steps within one week. Call the lower court record. List up this matter on its turn.