JUDGMENT Parmod Kumar Srivastava, J. – Original Suit No. 475/2001 Kailash Nath v. Deepak & Ors., was initially filed for the relief of permanent injunction regarding bhumidhari right of land of plot No. 574, situated in village Kusaurah. The plaint case in brief was that plaintiff is owner and bhumidhar of disputed plot and is in its possession, and defendants have no concerned with this property, but they are illegally trying to interfere in possession of plaintiffs, therefore they be restrained by means of permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit the plaint was amended with averments that in spite of interim injunction the defendants have constructed boundary wall over that portion of plot No. 574, which is detailed in plaint map by letters 'Aa, Ba, Sa, Da', so by mandatory injunction defendants be directed to remove said construction and maintain status quo ante. 2. Only defendant No.-1 Deepak had filed written-statement in original suit. Suit against remaining defendants ex-parte. In his w.s. the defendant No.-1 denied the plaint averments and pleaded that he is in possession of such 1-6-4 (1 Bigha, 6 Biswa, & 4 Dhur) land of plot No. 574. The plaintiffs have never been in possession of disputed property nor were defendants ever evicted from this portion of land. No cause of action arose to plaintiffs. Defendants' constructions are present over this disputed property from the time before the institution of suit, and the plaintiffs' suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. In replication, the plaintiffs denied the pleadings mentioned in w.s. of defendant No.-1 and pleaded that whole of the disputed property relating to plot No. 574 area 0.041 hectare came in ownership of plaintiffs during the consolidation proceedings. This dispute went up to the High Court, which was decided in favour of plaintiffs. Then defendants preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 18.01.2010. plaintiff was handed over the possession of disputed property, but in his absence during pendency of suit in the year 2002, the defendants had constructed new wall over a portion of it, which is should be demolished. 4. After framing of issues, admitting the evidences of the parties and affording opportunity of hearing to them, the trial court (IInd Additional Civil Judge, Court No.-13, Bhadohi at Gyanpur), had partially decreed the original suit, by its judgment dated 11.01.2012. 4. After framing of issues, admitting the evidences of the parties and affording opportunity of hearing to them, the trial court (IInd Additional Civil Judge, Court No.-13, Bhadohi at Gyanpur), had partially decreed the original suit, by its judgment dated 11.01.2012. In this judgment the trial court had given specific finding that plaintiffs is exclusive owner and bhumidhari with transferable right of plot No. 574 (0.041 hectare). 5. The dispute of this plot No. 574 had finally been decided. There is no dispute pending in this regard as the matter has been decided till Hon'ble Apex Court, and during the consolidation proceedings, the possession of disputed property was handed over to plaintiffs. The trial court had given its specific finding that during the consolidation proceedings, the plaintiffs had been handed over physical possession of disputed plot in compliance of order dated 16.11.1983 of Deputy Director of Consolidation and he had obtained possession of this land on 07.08.1984. The plaintiffs had proved his ownership and bhumidhari rights of disputed land. The trial court had held that although the plaintiff is owner of whole plot No. 574, but he was not in possession of that portion of property at the time of institution of this suit over which constructions of defendant are present. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction over that property of which he is owner and in his possession, but not for that portion which is in possession of defendant by raising construction. With these findings, the original suit was partially decreed. 6. Against the judgment dated 11.01.2012 of trial court two first civil appeals was preferred. Civil Appeal No. 10/2012 Kailash Nath v. Deepal & Ors., was filed by the plaintiff in original suit against that findings of trial court in which it was held that although plaintiffs had proved its ownership and bhumidhari rights of disputed constructed portion detailed in paint map by letters 'Aa, Ba, Sa, Da', but he could not proved his peaceful possession over this portion of land. Another Civil Appeal No. 24/2012 Deepak Dubey and another v. Kailash Nath & others was preferred by defendants No. 1 & 2 of original suit, in which the trial court's judgment of the decreeing the suit was challenged on the grounds that since the defendants are in possession of disputed property, therefore plaintiffs cannot get relief of permanent injunction. 7. Another Civil Appeal No. 24/2012 Deepak Dubey and another v. Kailash Nath & others was preferred by defendants No. 1 & 2 of original suit, in which the trial court's judgment of the decreeing the suit was challenged on the grounds that since the defendants are in possession of disputed property, therefore plaintiffs cannot get relief of permanent injunction. 7. Since both the appeals are related to parties of original suit No. 475/2001, and both the parties have preferred appeals (Civil Appeal No. 10/2012 preferred by plaintiff, and Civil Appeal No. 24/2012 by defendants) against the same judgment, therefore, both the appeals were consolidated and heard together and decided by a common judgment dated 19.08.2015 of District Judge, Bhadohi at Gyanpur. By this judgment, the first appellate court had accepted all the legal rights of plaintiffs over the disputed land and his entitlement of possession of this property and made it clear that defendants will remove their construction from the disputed land within two months, failing which the plaintiffs will be entitled to get it removed at expenses of defendants. By this judgment, the first appellate court had also directed other authorities , and to ensure the judgment passed in this case as well as the earlier judgment of High Court relating to same property. Thus by this judgment dated 19.08.1015, both the appeals were decided for providing the plaintiff total relief sought in his plaint. 8. Aggrieved by the judgments of the trial court, as well as first appellate court, two second appeals had been preferred by the defendants No. 1 & 2 of original suit. Second Appeal No. 1035/2015, was preferred against the finding and judgment given regarding first Civil Appeal No. 10/2012 (Kailash Nath v. Deepak & others), another Second Appeal No. 94/2016 was preferred against the judgments and findings of first appellate court regarding first Civil Appeal No. 24/2012, by which all contentions of defendant-appellants were rejected and judgment of trial court was confirmed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendants contended that there is no dispute regarding ownership of plaintiff-respondents over the disputed plot No. 574, because the said matter has been decided by the consolidation court, and also by the High Court. He contended that this Second Appeal is only based on point of possession. He contended that trial court had not found possession of plaintiff-appellant over constructed portion of disputed property. He contended that this Second Appeal is only based on point of possession. He contended that trial court had not found possession of plaintiff-appellant over constructed portion of disputed property. Therefore, in absence of possession, plaintiff-respondents cannot get the decree of permanent injunction. He further contended that appellants' case was that of adverse possession only. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although during the consolidation proceedings, the records were prepared regarding change of possession and handing over of possession of disputed property to plaintiff, but in fact it was deemed possession and no actual possession was handed over. He contended that lower courts had wrongly appreciated the factual evidences and there is evidence that there is no line of demarcation or partition between the portion of plaintiff and disputed property, therefore the judgment of lower court regarding grant of relief of permanent injunction is erroneous. He further contended that first appellate court had not framed the point of determination and not specifically reversed the finding of the trial court regarding the possession of defendants, therefore this erroneous judgment is liable to be set aside. So the appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that there has been evidence of ownership and possession of plaintiff-respondent, which was earlier confirmed by consolidation court, then High Court and then by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore the first appellate court had given correct judgment when it had specifically directed that judgments of superior courts (High Court and Supreme Court) should be implemented in its spirit. He contended that there was no case of adverse possession on defendant. Since the plaintiff is the owner of disputed property, so he is entitled for it's possession. In these circumstances, there is no error in the judgments of lower court and this appeal should be dismissed. 11. Another point raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that no formal point of determination was framed by first appellate court, therefore, its judgment should be treated as erroneous. A perusal of record reveals that the only point of determination between the parties in original suit and this matter was as to whether the plaintiff is owner of disputed property and is in its possession at the time of filing of original suit and is entitled to relief claimed in plaint. In appeal there was no dispute regarding ownership of disputed property. In appeal there was no dispute regarding ownership of disputed property. Other points were considered by first appellate court in its judgment. In these circumstances, the first appellate court had complied the mandate of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC in its spirit. Therefore although formal point of determination was not framed but it was mentioned in descriptive form and finding was given on it by a speaking order in which reason by speaking order was also given. 12. In G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, (2006) 3 SCC 224 , the Apex Court has held as under: - "The question whether in a particular case there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC has to be determined on the nature of the judgment delivered in each case. Non-compliance with the provisions may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void, and may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it and the second appellate court is in a position to ascertain the findings of the lower appellate court. It is no doubt desirable that the appellate court should comply with all the requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC. But if it is possible to make out from the judgment that there is substantial compliance with the said requirements and that justice has not thereby suffered, that would be sufficient. Where the appellate court has considered the entire evidence on record and discussed the same in detail, come to any conclusion and its findings are supported by reasons even though the point has not been framed by the appellate court there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC and the judgment is not in any manner vitiated by the absence of a point of determination. Where there is an honest endeavour on the part of the lower appellate court to consider the controversy between the parties and there is proper appraisement of the respective cases and weighing and balancing of the evidence, facts and the other considerations appearing on both sides is clearly manifest by the perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court, it would be a valid judgment even though it does not contain the points for determination. The object of the rule in making it incumbent upon the appellate court to frame points for determination and to cite reasons for the decision is to focus attention of the court on the rival contentions which arise for determination and also to provide litigant parties opportunity in understanding the ground upon which the decision is founded with a view to enable them to know the basis of the decision and if so considered appropriate and so advised to avail the remedy of second appeal conferred by Section 100 CPC." 13. Thus it is clear that in every case, non compliance of provisions of Order-41, Rule-31 CPC may not result in vitiation of judgment. If substantial compliance of this provision of Order-41, Rule-31 has been made and actually point of determination has been taken and decided, then mere formal non framing of point of determination would not adversely affect the judgment because it would not prejudice any legal right of appellant. 14. No doubt, no formal point of determination was framed, but since the parties went to trial and appeal fully knowing the rival cases and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of any point of determination was fatal to the case, or that there was that mistrial which vitiates proceedings. I am, therefore, of opinion that the appeal could not be allowed on this narrow ground, and also that there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion. Therefore, the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant on this point are also found unacceptable. 15. Since, it has finally been adjudicated by the Revenue Court, High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court that plaintiffs are owner and bhumidhar of disputed property and defendants have no right over this property, therefore being owner and Bhumidhar plaintiff-respondents are entitled to get its possession by removal of disputed illegal construction of defendants-appellant. There have been evidences that during consolidation proceedings plaintiff were put in possession of disputed property. Therefore their possession over it before the institution of suit, is acceptable fact, and denial of such possession of plaintiff by the defendant-appellant, and their contention in this regard, was rightly rejected by the lower courts. There have been evidences that during consolidation proceedings plaintiff were put in possession of disputed property. Therefore their possession over it before the institution of suit, is acceptable fact, and denial of such possession of plaintiff by the defendant-appellant, and their contention in this regard, was rightly rejected by the lower courts. Although learned counsel for the appellant had only pleaded about alleged adverse possession of defendant-appellant, but this is not acceptable because it was not pleaded in their written statement. It has been proved that plaintiff is owner and bhumidhar of disputed property and defendants have no right to retain its possession, therefore the judgments of lower courts are not incorrect or erroneous when direction for restoring possession was given by lower appellate court for removal of construction from property of plaintiff-respondents. The judgment of first appellate court regarding implementation of judgment of High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in its spirit is also not erroneous, rather it is acceptable finding, which is hereby confirmed. 16. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the learned first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that judgment in civil appeal as above is well reasoned, and based on proper appreciation of entire evidences on record. In this matter dispute related to such fact that could have been decided on basis of evidence, as it had been decided by first appellate court. No perversity or infirmity is found in finding re corded by the first appellate court to warrant interference through this appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, was involved before this Court. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants can be sustained. 17. In view of the above, and since this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, the second appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.