JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, J. 1. The legal heirs of the original defendant No. 1 are the appellants in this Second Appeal against a confirming judgment. The suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 for declaration of title and consequential reliefs. 2. The case of the plaintiff Respondent No. 1 is that the paddy land under patta No. 16/535 I.E.T.(new) covered by C.S. Dag No. 304 extending to an area of.70 acre originally belonged to late Waikhom Chaoba Singh and later on it was given to his daughter, Waikhom (N) W.(O) Thotlei Devi as her "Awool-Lou" under a family arrangement which is the suit land. The father of the plaintiff respondent No. 1, late Paonam Nongyai Singh purchased the land from Thotlei Devi under a registered sale deed dated 8.12.1972 and took possession thereafter. After death of the father, plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has been in cultivating possession of the suit land and has been paying land revenue. After death of the father of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, the other L.R.s such as mother and sister who were proforma defendants in the suit, did not claim any right and share in the suit land under a family arrangement and accordingly the plaintiff's name was duly recorded in the land records in respect of the suit land vide Mutation Case No. 74/A.S.S.O(Hq) of 1985. The original defendant No. 1 filed Revenue Revision Petition before the Director of Settlement & Land Records against the order of mutation dated 8.5.1972 in which the name of the father of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 had been mutated in respect of the suit land after the same was purchased from Thotlei Devi. In the said Revision case, the original defendant asserted that the suit land was mortgaged to him by late Waikhom Tharongou Singh under a registered mortgage deed on 2.3.1966 and since then he has been in possession of the suit land. The original defendant No. 1 also filed Civil Suit in the court of the learned Munsiff, Imphal east vide OS No. 9/86 seeking a declaration of title over the said property and also for delivery of possession against the legal heirs of late W. Tharongou and the said suit is still pending. The original defendant No. 1 also filed Civil Suit in the court of the learned Munsiff, Imphal east vide OS No. 9/86 seeking a declaration of title over the said property and also for delivery of possession against the legal heirs of late W. Tharongou and the said suit is still pending. On 30.6.1986 when the original defendant No. 1 made an attempt to enter into the suit land forcibly with the help of anti-social elements, proceeding u/s. 144 Cr.PC was initiated and an order was passed restraining the original defendant No. 1 and his privies from entering upon the suit land for a period of 2(two) months. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration of title and also for consequential reliefs. 3. The Original defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff respondent No. 1. The case of the original defendant No. 1 was that late W. Th. Singh was the owner/pattadar of the disputed land having inherited from his late father. During lifetime of W. Th. Singh, said land was mortgaged by him with the original defendant No. 1 under a registered deed dt. 2.3.1966 and subsequently it was sold to defendant No. 1 on payment of Rs. 1400/-. It was also contended in the written statement that at the time of execution and registration of the mortgage deed the patta Number of the suit land had been wrongly described in the mortgage deed though possession of the suit land had been delivered to the defendant No. 1 by virtue of the mortgage. Subsequently the original defendant No. 1 came to know that in the Revenue record, Smt. Thotlei, had been recorded as owner of the suit land and therefore a revision was filed challenging the mutation made in favour of late father of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 on the basis of the sale deed purportedly executed by Smt. Thotlei in favour of late father of plaintiff No. 1. It was specifically contended by defendant No. 1 that by virtue of the mortgage deed, he was in occupation of the land for more than 12 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 and therefore acquired title by way of adverse possession. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed 13 issues and on analysis of evidence decreed the suit. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed 13 issues and on analysis of evidence decreed the suit. The title of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 was declared and the original defendant No. 1 and his privies were restrained permanently from interfering with possession of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 over the suit land. 5. Challenging the above judgment and decree passed by the trial court the original defendant No. 1 filed Civil Appeal No. 6/03/1/05 before the learned District Judge, Manipur East. During pendency of the appeal, the original defendant No. 1 died and the present appellants were substituted as appellants in the said Civil Appeal. The appellate court, while confirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial court in the impugned judgment, did not discuss the evidence adduced by the parties and only reiterated the findings arrived at by the trial court in respect of the issues. The relevant two paragraphs of the impugned judgment are quoted below: "5. I have heard the ld. Counsels of both parties. The important issues in the Original Suit are the issue No3 that relates to the point whether late Paonam Nongyai Singh, father of the plaintiff had purchased the suit land from its former owner late Thotlei Devi under a registered sale deed; issue No. 4, whether the plaintiff has right and title over the suit land as inherited from his father P. Nongyai Singh, issue No. 7 who is in possession of the suit land, either the plaintiff or the defendant, and issue No. 8 whether the defendant has been in continuous and in exclusive possession of the suit land for more than 12 years since 1966 adversely and openly. The ld. Trial court gave his finding that the father of the plaintiff P. Nongyai Singh purchased the suit land from Wakambam Thotlei Devi by executing a registered sale deed dated 8.12.1972 and as a consequence the plaintiff acquired title to the suit land as he inherited the same from his father late P. Nongyai Singh. The ld. Trial court also gave his finding on issue No. 7 that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and also that the defendant No. 1 failed to prove that he has been in possession of the suit land since 1966. In the same line, the ld. The ld. Trial court also gave his finding on issue No. 7 that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and also that the defendant No. 1 failed to prove that he has been in possession of the suit land since 1966. In the same line, the ld. Trial court decided issue No. 8 against the defendant No. 1, the present appellant. Based on the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the ld. Trial court concluded that the plaintiff had acquired title to the suit land as he inherited the same from his father late P. Nongyai Singh who purchased the suit land under a registered sale deed from the original owner. 6. The case of the defendant No. 1 is that the suit land was mortgaged by late Tharongou Singh and subsequently the suit land was sold to the defendant No. 1 y adding the consideration amount of Rs. 1,400/-. This was discussed in deciding in issue No. 5 by the ld. Trial court and gave his finding that the defendant No. 1 cannot claim that he purchased the same from Tharongou Singh with delivery of possession, as there was no registered sale deed. The mortgage deed cannot be converted to a sale by giving additional amount of consideration. IN deciding the issue the ld. Trial court also discussed the provisions of section 92 of the Evidence Act relating to exclusion of evidence of oral agreement while a contract has been reduced into writing and subsequently gave his finding that the claim of the defendant No. 1, the present appellant that he had purchased the same on payment of additional consideration amount although there was no registered sale deed, is not sustainable in the eye of law, and as such issue No. 5 was decided against the defendant No. 1, the present appellant." 6. Ms R.K. Radhapiyari Devi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellate authority is required to discuss the evidence, apply its own mind and come to definite finding. Ms R.K. Radhapiyari Devi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellate authority is required to discuss the evidence, apply its own mind and come to definite finding. In the present case, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned District Judge only reiterated what has been said by the trial court while answering the issues, but the learned District Judge never discussed the evidence independently applying his own mind and therefore the appeal should be allowed and matter should be remitted back to the appellate court for disposal afresh. 7. None appeared for the respondents at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by the court: "(i) Whether the order dt. 7.2.1965 passed by the learned Asst Survey & Settlement Officer, Imphal East, Manipur in Misc. Case No. 60/ASSO/IE/1965 for entering the name of W. Tharongou Singh after the death of W. Chaoba Singh was passed legally with the knowledge of the 3 daughters including Smt. Thotlei Devi. (ii) Whether Smt. W. Thotlei Devi had the right for claiming the suit land as an Awool-lou after the death of her father W. Chaoba Singh under a family arrangement. iii) Whether the order dt. 8.5.1972 passed by the learned Asst. Survey & Settlement Officer (Hq), Manipur in Misc. Case No. 49/ASSO/IE (Mani)/1972 for entering the name of Smt. W. Thotlei Devi in the absence of W. Tharoangou Singh is a void order or not? iv) Whether Smt. Thotlei Devi can file the application being Misc. Case No. 49/ASSO/IE(Mani)/1972 before ld. Asst. Survey & Settlement Officer (Hq) before setting aside the order dated 7.2.1965 passed in Misc. Case No. 60/ASSO/IE/1965? v) Whether Smt. Thotlei Devi had the right and title for transferring the suit land by executing a regd. Sale deed dated 8.12. 1972 in favour of Late P. Nongyai Singh, the father of the respondent No. 1?" 9. Asst. Survey & Settlement Officer (Hq) before setting aside the order dated 7.2.1965 passed in Misc. Case No. 60/ASSO/IE/1965? v) Whether Smt. Thotlei Devi had the right and title for transferring the suit land by executing a regd. Sale deed dated 8.12. 1972 in favour of Late P. Nongyai Singh, the father of the respondent No. 1?" 9. Though the above substantial questions of law had been framed by the learned Single Judge at the time of admission of the Second Appeal, on perusal of the judgment and order of the appellate court, I find that the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties have not at all been discussed by the lower appellate court with regard to the issues framed by the trial court. Therefore, this additional substantial questions of law is required to be formulated: "Whether non consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties with regard to the issues framed by the trial court vitiates the judgment of the lower appellate court?" 10. While considering the above substantial question of law, I find from paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment that the lower appellate court has narrated the pleadings of the parties, findings arrived at by the trial court in relation to the issues but has not applied his mind to the evidence adduced before the trial court and has also not arrived at any conclusion either in confirmation of the finding of the trial court or differing with the finding of the trial court. This fact is evident from what the lower appellate court had discussed in paragraphs- 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment quoted earlier. The first appellate court is the last court for consideration of a case on merit both on fact and law. Therefore, it is the duty of the first appellate court to consider the entire evidence independent of what has been decided by the trial court and come to definite conclusions in relation to the issues framed by the trial court. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Kumaraswami & Ors reported in AIR 1977 SC 2026 . In the said reported case, the High Court brushed aside the finding of the subordinate Judge without any appreciation of the documents or contention of the parties and gave a perfunctory judgment. In the said reported case, the High Court brushed aside the finding of the subordinate Judge without any appreciation of the documents or contention of the parties and gave a perfunctory judgment. The Apex Court held that the High Court failed to exercise the duty as appellate court and therefore remitted the matter back to the High Court for disposal of the appeal afresh. In the present case, as stated earlier, the lower appellate court has confirmed the finding of the trial court without discussing the evidence and coming to definite conclusions. The lower appellate court has only referred to some of the pleadings of the parties and the findings arrived at by the trial court in relation to the issues. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court suffers from non application of mind. 11. I, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court and remit the matter back to the court of the learned District Judge, Manipur East to dispose of the Civil Appeal afresh on merit. The records be sent back immediately.