JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgment dated 01.08.2002 and decree dated 05.08.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 9/2001 affirming the judgment dated 31.05.2001 and decree dated 07.06.2001 passed by the trial Court in Title Suit No. 6/1994 the defendant No. 2 as appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Second Appeal which was admitted for hearing by framing the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether bona fide purchaser (Appellant) purchasing the suit land by a Registered Sale Deed dated 03.01.94 pursuant to the Bainama dated 05.11.93 along with possession is void only on the ground that the Bainama dated 08.12.93 is allegedly made with the plaintiff although it is subsequent in time. 2. Whether thumb impression put in the Bainama dated 08.12.93, is an over write the signature given in the Bainama dated 05.11.93 based on which sale deed dated 03.11.94 is executed by the owner who expired already." The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that he had entered into an agreement for sale dated 08.12.1993 with the defendant No. 1, who is also his younger brother, for purchase of the suit land pursuant whereto the plaintiff was also put in possession in respect of the said plot of land. As per the terms of the bainanama dated 8.12.93 the said transaction was required to be completed within the month of January, 1994. However, while the sale deed was yet to be executed, the plaintiff had come to know that the land was already mortgaged with the Bank against the loan obtained by the defendant No. 1. Having come to know about the same me plaintiff had requested the defendant No. 1 to repay the mortgage amount and free the land so as to enable him to execute the sale deed. However, the defendant No. 1 did not do so. On the contrary, the plaintiff could come to know that on 03.01.1994 the defendant No. 1 had executed a registered deed of sale by which the suit land was transferred in favour of the defendant No. 2 for valuable consideration. The plaintiffs suit was therefore, filed, inter alia, seeking a decree for specific performance of contract dated 8.12.93 and also for a declaration that the registered deed of sale dated 03.01.1994 was illegal, void and inoperative in the eye of law. 2. The plaintiffs suit was therefore, filed, inter alia, seeking a decree for specific performance of contract dated 8.12.93 and also for a declaration that the registered deed of sale dated 03.01.1994 was illegal, void and inoperative in the eye of law. 2. The plaintiff's suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by filing a joint written statement whereby the contesting defendants had raised various pleas questioning the maintainability of the suit, the details of which need not be gone into in the present order. It was the pleaded stand, inter alia, of the contesting defendants that on 05.11.93 the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into a bainanama for purchase of the suit land by the defendant No. 2. The registered deed of sale dated 03.01.94 was finally executed in furtherance of the bainanama dated 05.11.93. It is also the case of the defendants that the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance amount under the bainanama dated 8.12.93 as a result of which he had no right to seek a decree of specific performance of contract. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court had framed the following issues:- "1) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 3) Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 vide No. 394 in respect of the suit land is illegal, void and liable to be cancelled? 4) Whether the defendant No. 1 executed an agreement to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff prior to the execution of the sale deed No. 394? 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 6) To what relief or reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled?" 4. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective case. Eventually, based on the materials on record as well as the argument advanced by and on behalf of the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by answering the material Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective case. Eventually, based on the materials on record as well as the argument advanced by and on behalf of the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by answering the material Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.05.2001 and decree dated 7.6.2001 passed in Title Suit No. 6/1994 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant No. 2 as appellant had preferred Title Appeal No. 9/2001 before the Court of the learned District Judge, Barpeta. By the judgment dated 01.08.2002 and decree dated 05.08.2002 the learned First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 01.08.2002 and decree dated 05.08.2002 passed in Title Appeal No. 9/2001 the defendant No. 2 as appellant has preferred this Second Appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that although the aforementioned substantial questions of law had been framed by this Court at the time of admission of the appeal, yet, a perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court would go to show that the real substantial question of law that would arise for decision of this Court in this appeal is as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court has been passed in violation of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Choudhury submits that from the judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court it would be evident that the learned Court below has failed to either consider or discuss the findings and decisions recorded by the trial Court in respect of Issue Nos. 3 and 4 which were the vital issues having a material bearing in the outcome of the suit. Although the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court had been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the findings of the Court below as regards Issue Nos. 3 and 4 which were the vital issues having a material bearing in the outcome of the suit. Although the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court had been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the findings of the Court below as regards Issue Nos. 3 and 4 was not sustainable in the eye of law, yet no reference whatsoever, has been made by the First Appellate Court to the said issues at the time of delivering the appellate judgment. 9. Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits, in all fairness, that although it is a fact that the First Appellate Court has not gone into the Issue Nos. 3 and 4 nor has the Court below recorded any decision in respect thereof, yet the learned trial Court had decreed the suit based on a threadbare discussion on various factual aspects of the matter. He, therefore, submits that this Court should answer the substantial questions of law by looking at the findings of the trial Court as well as the materials available on record. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by and on behalf of the parties. On a reading of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court what is evident is that the Court below was conscious of the fact of the Issue Nos. 3 and 4 where the vital issues which would arise for consideration in the first appeal. However, having observed as above, it appears that in the entire judgment and learned appellate Court below has not made any attempt to discuss or record any independent finding in respect of the said Issue Nos. 3 and 4 based on materials available on record. 11. It is settled law that the First Appeal is a valuable right of the parties. The Court of First Appeal is the final Court on facts which is also entitled to look into issues of law. When an appeal raises questions pertaining to findings of facts as well as issues of law based on the conclusions drawn by the trial Court, the First Appellate Court is duty bound to appreciate the evidence on record and record independent conclusions on each of the issues by recording reasons thereof. When an appeal raises questions pertaining to findings of facts as well as issues of law based on the conclusions drawn by the trial Court, the First Appellate Court is duty bound to appreciate the evidence on record and record independent conclusions on each of the issues by recording reasons thereof. If the same is not done, then, the judgment and decision of the First Appellate Court would be in violation of the mandate of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC an therefore, would stand vitiated in the eye of law. Having regard to the recourse that this Court proposes to adopt, there would be no requirement to record excruciating details regarding the contents of the judgment passed by the appellate Court below. 12. In the instant case, the plaintiff had challenged the legality and validity of the sale deed on the strength of which the defendants had acquired the title over the suit land. The claim of the plaintiff as regards the decree of specific performance of contract would be wholly dependent on the answer to the question as to whether the bainanama dated 5.11.93 (Ext-Ka) was a genuine document or not. In that view of the matter, Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were the key issues and ought to have been dealt with by the First Appellate Court before arriving at the conclusion as regards the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. However, it is not in dispute that in the present case the First Appellate Court has not gone into the Issue Nos. 3 and 4 at all. In that view of the matter the judgment and decree under appeal stood vitiated on that count alone and hence, is liable to be set aside by this Court. 13. It is settled law that the scope of the Second Appellate Court under Section 100 of the CPC is very limited and is generally confined to answering the substantial questions of law that are framed by the Court. Having regard to the nature of determination that would be called for so as to record a finding as regards Issue Nos. 3 and 4 it is evident that the Court will have to re-appreciate the evidence and record findings of fact. Having regard to the nature of determination that would be called for so as to record a finding as regards Issue Nos. 3 and 4 it is evident that the Court will have to re-appreciate the evidence and record findings of fact. In exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC it will not be proper nor permissible for the High Court to record findings of facts by re-appreciating evidence. In that view of the matter, this Court is left with no other option but to set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand the matter back to the First Appellate Court for a fresh decision of the appeal on merit upon due consideration of the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal filed by the parties. Accordingly, it is directed that the parties to the proceedings would now appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 11.06.2015 in connection with Title Appeal No. 9/2001, which would now stand restored to the file of the learned District Judge, Barpeta on being remanded by this Court. Having regard to the fact that the Title Suit is of the year 1994, an attempt would be made by the appellate Court below to dispose of the appeal as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties, if necessary, by holding day to day hearing of the appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to cost. The Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly.