JUDGMENT : Per Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment, dated 21.8.2015, rendered by learned District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No. 42/2014. 2. The key facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiffs” for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction and possession against appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant” for convenience sake). Jog Raj was added as proforma defendant. According to the averments made in the plaint, one Daitu had two sons, namely, Tehlu and Dodu. Tehlu expired and his property was inherited by his son, Repu. Dodu also expired and his property was inherited by his son, Bholu. After the death of Bholu, his property was also inherited by his daughter, Nanji. Property of Repu was also inherited by plaintiffs. Nanji was owner in possession of land measuring 0-05-64 hectares, comprised in Khasra No.432, Khata Khatauni No.171/283, situated in Phati Hallan-I, Kothi Naggar, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04. Nanji was deaf and dumb. She used to reside with the plaintiffs. After her death, the plaintiffs inherited her property. Thereafter, they had become owners in possession of the suit land. However, in order to grab the suit land, the defendant filed an application before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kullu bearing case No. 6-T/2008 for correction of revenue entries without making the plaintiffs party and the application was allowed on 20.10.2008. Mutation No.120, dated 22.10.2009, was attested behind the back of the plaintiffs. The defendant started causing unlawful interference over the suit land. It is under these circumstances, the suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. On merits, it was averred that Daitu had three sons, Tehlu, Dodu and Kamlu. He denied that after the death of Bholu, his property was inherited by Nanji. According to him, one Lihri, sister of mother of Nanji, namely, Nathi had bequeathed her property in favour of Nanji. Nathi during her life time with the consent of Nanji inducted defendant as tenant over the suit land about more than 40 years ago on payment of 1/4th share of the produce and now the defendant is in possession of the suit land. Nanji was dumb, but not deaf and was not of low intelligence. He denied that Nanji ever resided with the plaintiffs. Nanji was dumb, but not deaf and was not of low intelligence. He denied that Nanji ever resided with the plaintiffs. According to him, Bholu, his wife Nathi and Nanji resided with Totu, who was the real brother of Bholu. After the death of Bholu, Nathi and Nanji resided with the defendant and Totu. Totu in lieu of past and future services being rendered by defendant gifted his entire landed property in his favour vide registered gift deed in the year 1993. Totu died in the year 1998. After the death of Totu, defendant continued to look after and maintain Nanji. Last rites of Totu, his wife Poshi and Nanji were performed by him. At the time of commencement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the suit land was being cultivated by him on payment of rent. He developed an orchard. 4. The learned trial court framed the issues on 7.12.2010 and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2014. The plaintiffs feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2014 preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate court, who allowed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 21.8.2015 and remanded the suit to the learned trial court for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard and to lead evidence to the parties on additional issues No. 1(a) and 1(b). Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. K. D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Ranjana Chauhan, Advocate, has supported the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2014 passed by the learned trial court. 6. Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Advocate, has supported the impugned judgment dated 21.8.2015 passed by the learned first appellate court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. One of the plaintiffs, Murli Ram, appeared as PW1 and led his evidence by filing an affidavit, Ext. PW1/A. He reiterated the averments contained in the plaint. 9. PW2, Roshan Lal Thakur, testified that he had issued notice to the defendant vide Ext. PW2/A. 10. PW3, Narender Sharma, proved on record application for correction of revenue entries Ext. PW3/A and order Ext. PW3/B. 11. Defendant, Bala Ram, appeared as DW1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence, DW1/A reiterating the averments made in the written statement. He proved on record, gift deed, Ext. DW1/B. 12. DW2, Niranjan Dass, is scribe of gift deed, Ext. DW1/B. 13. PW3, Narender Sharma, proved on record application for correction of revenue entries Ext. PW3/A and order Ext. PW3/B. 11. Defendant, Bala Ram, appeared as DW1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence, DW1/A reiterating the averments made in the written statement. He proved on record, gift deed, Ext. DW1/B. 12. DW2, Niranjan Dass, is scribe of gift deed, Ext. DW1/B. 13. DW3, Bholu Ram is the attesting witness to the gift deed, Ext. DW1/B. 14. DW4, Sukh Ram and DW5 Subhash have seen the defendant cultivating the suit land. 15. The gift deed, Ext. DW1/B is not qua the suit land. It has come on record that the Daitu had three sons, Tehlu, Dodu and Kamlu. The defendant had moved the application for correction of revenue entries qua the suit land vide Ext. PW3/A. No notice was issued to the plaintiffs while passing the order, Ext. PW3/B. The order, Ext. PW3/B was in contravention of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The plaintiffs ought to have been heard before alternation of the revenue entries. Accordingly, the correction of the revenue entries by way of mutation vide order, Ext. PW3/B was bad in law. 16. Nanji had died issueless. Thus, defendant could not be conferred with proprietary rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiffs admittedly are legal heirs of Nanji. Surprisingly, the plea of tenancy was solely taken by defendant, Bala Ram and not by proforma defendant, Jog Raj. The plaintiffs were non-suited on the ground that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial court has framed as many as twelve issues, but the issue “Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties” was not framed. The learned appellate court has rightly come to conclusion that in case trial court has come to the conclusion that the suit was bad for misjoinder of necessary parties, an opportunity should have been afforded to the plaintiffs to move an appropriate application for impleading necessary parties. Thus, the learned trial court has rightly framed the following additional issues for determination:- 1(a) Whether Nanji, being daughter of Bholu, inherited his property after his death? OPP. 1(b) Whether plaintiffs being legal heirs of Nanji and after her death, they have inherited the suit land, along with other property. If so, its effect? OPP. 17. Thus, the learned trial court has rightly framed the following additional issues for determination:- 1(a) Whether Nanji, being daughter of Bholu, inherited his property after his death? OPP. 1(b) Whether plaintiffs being legal heirs of Nanji and after her death, they have inherited the suit land, along with other property. If so, its effect? OPP. 17. The learned first appellate court has correctly made the observation that Swari was one of the plaintiffs, but her name was omitted in the cause title while dismissing the suit preferred by the plaintiffs on 30.10.2014. Name of Keshav Ram was deleted vide order dated 29.2.2016 by this Court for completion of record. 18. In Syed Mahmood vs. Manik Chandra, 1998 (3) Andh. W.R. 340, learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that the court is bound to frame issues based on the pleadings. Rule 3 of Order XIV of Code of Civil Procedure gives a guideline as to the materials from which issues may be framed namely (a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties, (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit, (c) the contents of documents produced by either party. Learned Single Judge has held as under:- [9] Order XIV of C. P. C. deals with settlement of issues and determination of the suit on issues of law or issues agreed upon. The provisions in this Order enable the court and the parties to settle down to know the matters in controversy, put them in a proper form, fix the burden on the parties to prove on particular issues, then allow them to lead the evidence and thereafter decide the matter after trial leading to the judgment. The provisions in this Order enable the court and the parties to settle down to know the matters in controversy, put them in a proper form, fix the burden on the parties to prove on particular issues, then allow them to lead the evidence and thereafter decide the matter after trial leading to the judgment. Interestingly enough, 'issues' are not defined in the evidence Act, but 'facts in issue' is defined as follows: "facts in issue" means and includes – any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other fact, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows; explanation:- Whenever under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue, is a fact in issue. " a simple reading of this provision means, that facts in issue would be already existing between the parties when the pleadings are complete and the discovery and inspection of facts and documents are presented before the court. It is at that stage, the court would put such facts in issue in a particular form called "issues". That is how Order XIV (1) (1) explains 'issues' to mean- "issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. " it is further explained in sub-clause (2) of rule 1 of Order XIV that material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. That is how sub-clause (3) of rule 1 of Order XIV declares that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other, shall form the subject of a distinct issue. Obviously as mentioned in sub-clause (4) of Rule 1 supra, there will be two categories of issues - (a) issues of fact and (b) issues of law. That is how sub-clause (3) of rule 1 of Order XIV declares that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other, shall form the subject of a distinct issue. Obviously as mentioned in sub-clause (4) of Rule 1 supra, there will be two categories of issues - (a) issues of fact and (b) issues of law. Sub-clause (5) of Rule 1 supra reads as follows: "at the first hearing of the suit the court shall after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after examination under Rule 2 of order X and after hearing the parties or their Pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. " (emphasis supplied). On the face of it, there is a mandate in the rule. The court is bound to frame issues based on the pleadings. Rule 3 of Order xiv of C. P. C. gives a guideline as to the materials from which, issues may be framed namely-- (a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties, (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit, (c) the contents of documents produced by either party. In other words when these materials are produced before the Court in accordance with the provisions stated supra, the Court is bound to frame the issues in accordance with guidelines under Order XIV Rule 1 to 4 and in accordance with the mandate under Rule 5 of C. P. C. So far as the court is concerned, the duty to frame the issues is mandatory or obligatory. It appears that in such a situation, the definition of "facts in issue" under Section 2 of Evidence Act and the meaning of "issues" under Order xiv Rule 1 of C. P. C. should be read together to harmoniously understand that the facts in issue in each case arising out of such materials before the court should be subjected to specific forms of issues enumerating the controversies between the parties, the burden of the parties to prove such issues and the duty of the court to draw inference on the questions of law as issues of law. Therefore, in such a situation, failure to frame issues on the part of the court, if arise out of the pleadings would be a highest form of judicial impropriety, if not contempt of a legal mandate enjoined upon it. [11] If these issues had been framed by the trial court, both the parties would have been directed to lead evidence adequately depending upon the nature of burden and proof cast upon them in law and facts, so that it would be easy for them not to unnecessarily labour hard in so many matters. Surprisingly enough, the trial court, except framing issue No. 1 which is really in the form of answering finally whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree and which can never be an issue at all, did not frame any other issues. The expression used in Order XIV of C. P. C. is 'settlement of issues'. It is not even 'framing of issues'. 'settlement of issues' connotes a true and legal meaning that the issues are to be settled from out of the facts in issue arising out of the pleadings and other materials produced. Failure to do so, would be an utter ignorance of the legal implications and an utter failure on the part of the court in not discharing its duty enjoined upon it by law. That has been done by trial court successfully but to the result which may boarder at injustice to one or the other party. It is pertinent to point out that there cannot be any lis without issues. Because of the issues, the or litigation exists. If no issues are framed by the court as in the present case, it means that there was no lis at all. It is pertinent to point out that there cannot be any lis without issues. Because of the issues, the or litigation exists. If no issues are framed by the court as in the present case, it means that there was no lis at all. It is because of the lis or issues, there would be trial by the court in which the parties would be called upon to produce evidence and the court will decide the matter. Judged in that back-ground in this case, strictly speaking, no issues at all are framed. That is not only an absolute failure to exercise judicial duty enjoined upon the trial court, but also a travesty of justice to be expended to the'. parties in its letter and spirit. [12] The learned Advocate for the respondent may not be wrong when he argued that although particular issue is not framed and when the parties know as to what materials they are to produce, when the court deals with them and decides the matter after giving opportunities to both the parties, it would not be fatal. To that extent, the legal proposition is correct. But on a proper examination of the legal position in this regard may not leave the matter at such a state only. In substance, the legal implications flowing from Order 14 (1) of C. P. C. may be this stated: "...An issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other party. Every such material proposition should form a subject of distinct issue. The object of framing issue plays a very important and distinctive role in a suit. The whole object is to direct the attention of the parties to the principal questions on which they are at variance. Issues are required to be framed for the purpose of having the material points in controversy rightly decided and to bring a finality in the litigation and as such it is the duty of the court to frame proper issues on the basis of materials as referred to in Order 14, rule 3, C. P. C. and while framing issues court must bear in mind that it is an absolute necessity that determination in a case should be founded upon a case to be found on pleadings or involved in or consistent with the case as made. Unlesspraper issues are framed a party who suffers a judgment on the basis of findings not based on proper issues may have a legitimate grievance to contend that because of such non-framing of issue he has been denied the opportunity of leading proper evidence for rebutting relevant facts (Page 672 and 673 of c. P. C. by A. N. Saha, 3rd Edn. ) as rightly contended by the learned advocate for the respondent, the omission to frame the correct issues, has some effects, but not fatal always. To sum up: "when the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival cases and led all the evidence not only in support of their case but also in refutation of the case of other side, it cannot be said that absence of a specific issue is fatal to case or that there occurred a mistrial vitiating the proceedings. The suit cannot be dismissed on this narrow ground. When the parties have adduced evidence knowing the respective cases, trial is not vitiated for non-framing of issue, no remand or for framing proper issue is justified. The settled law that mere non-framing of an issue does not vitiate a finding when the parties have led evidence on the point, cannot, however, be construed to cover those cases as well where the finding on such plea on non-framed issue is sought to be made foundation of decision on any other plea. Failure to frame issue is not fatal if the parties lead evidence being consciolis of the point at controversy. " (Pages 675 and 676 of A. N. Saha's C. P. C. supra) so, a case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances to know whether the result would be legal or fatal in a particular case. If the trial court had framed atleast some issues, the non-framing of a proper issue would not have been fatal. In this case, as stated above, no issues at all have been settled. Or framed that would be a paradox of justice not in accordance with law. Therefore, even applying the principle stated above, the judgment and decree of the of the trial court cannot be supported. In this case, as stated above, no issues at all have been settled. Or framed that would be a paradox of justice not in accordance with law. Therefore, even applying the principle stated above, the judgment and decree of the of the trial court cannot be supported. In such a situation, the law appears to be that when in spite of a plea being taken in the written statement, proper issue is not framed and thereby the parties are deprived of leading evidence, appellate court can remand the suit to trial court (Page 674 of C. P. C by A. N. Saha supra). 19. Similarly, in Pandian vs. A. Abitha Begam, 2001 AIHC 1053, learned Single Judge of Madras High Court has held that it is incumbent on the part of the Court to frame proper issues based on specific pleadings so as to pave the way for parties to adhere the issues and adduce evidence towards establishing the points involved in the case. Learned Single Judge has held as under:- [21] First, there must be pleadings to the effect of the relief granted by the court. Secondly, it is incumbent on the part of the court to frame proper issues based on specific pleadings so as to pave the way for parties to adhere the issues and adduce evidence towards establishing the points involved in the case. Thirdly, on such oral and documentary evidence collected and based on the evidence and the circumstances and adhering the position of law, the rent controller and the appellate authority in appreciation of the evidence in the proper manner, should have passed orders in accordance with law. Here, the authorities have given the relief in favour of the petitioner/landlady which she has not sought for in spite of the grounds under which specific reliefs have been sought for on the part of the landlady, admittedly by the authorities below not being established. In short, what legally the petitioner/landlady had failed to prove, the rent controller and the appellate authority have accorded other way round without any basis or proof, arbitrarily, declaring that they are empowered by law to grant such reliefs under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Act. 20. Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.