JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of the present appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs have challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1999/RBT No. 76/04, vide which learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 381 of 1994 dated 18.09.1999, but also held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants were able to prove their respective claims on record. 2. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 28.11.2007: “1. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the ld. 1st Appellate Court is sustainable in the eyes of law for mis-construing and mis-interpreting the Exhibits P-1 and P-2 which are the copies of the Jamabandis showing the predecessor-in-interests of the appellants as non-occupancy tenants over the land in dispute? 2. Whether both the Ld. Courts below have committed an error while considering Exhibits D-1 to D-5 keeping in view the fact that Exhibits D-1 to D-5 do not pertain to the land in dispute? 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit to the effect that Santa, S/o Sidhu and Surbhan, widow of Makoda were non-occupancy tenants to half share of the suit land, whereas remaining half share was in the tenancy of Gopala, Gobind and Rohli, sons of Nikku as per Jamabandi consolidation 1962- 63 of village concerned. Subsequently, a clerical mistake crept in the revenue records and name of Naulu, son of Tahu also figured as nonoccupancy tenant, though this Naulu was never a tenant over the suit land. As per the plaintiff, his name appeared without any legal valid order by any competent authority and these entries in revenue records showing Naulu and his legal heirs, i.e. defendants as non-occupancy tenants and subsequently as owners of the suit land were incorrect, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Accordingly, a decree of declaration was sought to the effect that revenue entries showing defendants initially as non-occupancy tenants over the suit land and subsequently as owners of the same were incorrect and not binding on the plaintiff. Accordingly, a decree of declaration was sought to the effect that revenue entries showing defendants initially as non-occupancy tenants over the suit land and subsequently as owners of the same were incorrect and not binding on the plaintiff. It was further prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering over the suit land in any manner whatsoever. 4. The suit so filed by the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties and there was no clerical mistake as was being alleged by the plaintiff because father of defendants, i.e. Naulu was cultivating the suit land as tenant since the time of his ancestors and accordingly his name was rightly recorded in the revenue records. According to the defendants, proprietary rights were rightly conferred upon them and revenue entries existing in this regard in their favour were neither wrong, illegal nor incorrect. Further, as per the defendants, the plaintiff had no legal right to challenge the revenue entries in a Civil Court as revenue entries cannot be corrected by a Civil Court. As per the defendants, the matter had been agitated before the Land Revenue Officer and in case the plaintiff was aggrieved, he could have agitated the matter before the Revenue Courts. On these basis, the suit so filed by the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether Naulu was not the tenant of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Relief. 6. The following findings were returned on the issues so framed by the learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties: “Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2: No. Relief: Suit dismissed with costs per operative part of the judgment. 7. Learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.09.1999 while dismissing the suit so filed by the plaintiff held that it was clear from the scrutiny of the record that Tahu, son of Sh. Sawnu was shown as tenant at will on payment of Galla Batai in copy of Jamabandi for the year 1921- 22 (Ex. D1) and similarly in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1925-26, father of defendants Sh. Sawnu was shown as tenant at will on payment of Galla Batai in copy of Jamabandi for the year 1921- 22 (Ex. D1) and similarly in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1925-26, father of defendants Sh. Naulu, son of Tahu was also shown as tenant at Will with other tenants and this entry repeated in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1941-42 (Ex. D3), copy of Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 (Ex.D4) and copy of Jamabandi for the year 1966-67 (Ex.D5). Learned trial Court further held that defendants after the death of their father were shown to be tenants at Will in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 (Ex. D6) and proprietary rights were conferred upon them as per the provisions of Section 104(3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act vide mutation No. 1382 on 27.09.1989. On these basis, learned trial Court held that the plaintiff could not be permitted to say that due to some clerical mistake in revenue records, the name of Naulu, son of Tahu figured in the revenue records. On these basis, learned trial Court dismissed the suit so filed by the plaintiff. 8. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment so passed by learned trial Court. Learned appellate Court vide its judgment dated 28.12.2006, dismissed the appeal so filed by the plaintiff. Learned appellate Court also held that it appeared from the record that defendants had placed on record Jamabandis Ex. D1 to Ex. D4 showing Sh. Naulu, their predecessor-in-interest to be a tenant over the suit land from the year 1921-22 to 1945-46, however, the land recorded in the said Jamabandis was totally different from the suit land. Learned appellate Court further held that it appeared that the documents which were placed on record by the defendants were totally irrelevant and did not pertain to the suit land. It also held that it appeared from the judgment passed by learned lower Court that the said Court had totally misread documents Ex. D1 to Ex. D4 and it wrongly concluded that these documents pertained to the suit land. It also held that by placing these documents on record, the defendants had in fact mislead the learned lower Court and learned lower Court by misreading said documents had held the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants to be tenant over the suit land. D1 to Ex. D4 and it wrongly concluded that these documents pertained to the suit land. It also held that by placing these documents on record, the defendants had in fact mislead the learned lower Court and learned lower Court by misreading said documents had held the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants to be tenant over the suit land. Learned appellate Court also held that it appeared from copy of Jamabandi for the year 1962-63 (Ex. P1) that Sh. Santa, father of plaintiff Bakshi Ram was recorded a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land. However, plaintiff had not placed on record any material prior to the year 1962-63, from which it could be inferred that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had been continuously recorded as tenant over the suit land. Learned appellate Court further held that besides producing on record copy of Jamabandi for the year 1962-63 (Ex. D1), the plaintiff had produced another Jamabandi on record pertaining to the year 1992-93 (Ex.P2), but no record was produced by the plaintiff pertaining to the years between 1962-63 and 1992-93 to prove his tenancy over the suit land. It also held that in the absence of any record showing father of the plaintiff to be tenant over the suit land prior to the year 1962-63, it could be concluded that this entry in the name of Santa appearing for the first time in the jamabandi for the year 1962-63 was a stray entry made without any inquiry or order passed by the competent authority. On these basis, learned appellate Court held that entry in the name of father of the plaintiff as tenant over the suit land appearing for the first time in the year 1962-63 was illegal, wrong and incorrect without any order of the competent authority and, therefore, the same was liable to be deleted and corrected. It also held that subsequent entries in the Jamabandis including mutation Ex. D7 attested in favour of the parties was illegal. Learned appellate Court also held that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants in the year 1994 and the suit was based on Jamabandi for the year 1962-63 and not on latest Jamabandi. It further held that none of the co-owners and cotenants who were necessary parties in the present suit were arrayed as such by the plaintiff. It further held that none of the co-owners and cotenants who were necessary parties in the present suit were arrayed as such by the plaintiff. It also held that it appeared from the records of the case that at the stage of appeal, the plaintiff has moved an application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file fresh suit, which application, however, was dismissed by the learned District Judge. Accordingly, while returning the said findings, learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal so filed by the plaintiff against the judgment passed by learned trial Court. But while doing so, learned appellate Court also held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants had been able to prove their respective claims on record and in this background, it also set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court by holding as under: “17. In view of my findings and discussion on Point No. 1 above, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower Court are set aside. It is accordingly declared that neither the plaintiff nor his father nor Shri Naulu, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, were the tenants over the suit land nor they have become owners thereof and the entries in their name in the record of right as discussed above, as tenants and subsequently as owners, are wrong, illegal and unauthorisedly made and therefore, likely to be deleted and corrected accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The record of the lower Court be sent back with a copy of this judgment while the file of this Court, be consigned to the Record Room after the needful. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by both the learned Courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. 10. It was strenuously argued by Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the judgments passed by learned first appellate Court was not sustainable in law as the same was a result of complete misconstruing and misinterpretation of Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. According to Mr. Sharma, the finding returned by learned appellate Court to the effect that the entries in the revenue records in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in Ex. P1 were stray entries was wrong and incorrect finding. According to Mr. P1 and Ex. P2. According to Mr. Sharma, the finding returned by learned appellate Court to the effect that the entries in the revenue records in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in Ex. P1 were stray entries was wrong and incorrect finding. According to Mr. Sharma, this finding was based on conjectures rather than any material produced on record in this regard by the defendants. According to Mr. Sharma, it was apparent and evident from Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 that predecessor-in interest of the plaintiff was tenant at will over the suit land and these entries were not stray entries. He also argued that learned appellate Court had also erred in concluding that the suit was not maintainable on account of non-impleadment of necessary parties as no issue in this regard was framed by the learned trial Court. Further, according to Mr. Sharma, while learned trial Court erred in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff by relying upon Ex. D1 to Ex. D5, learned appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff by not appreciating that whereas on one hand, the defendants had miserably failed to prove that their predecessors-in-interest were tenants at will over the suit land, the plaintiff had duly proved by placing on record relevant revenue entries entered in Jamabandis Ex. P1 and Ex. P2, from which it stood proved that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was tenant at will. Accordingly, he submitted and prayed that the judgments passed by both the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court were perverse and the findings returned by the said two Courts were not borne out from the material produced on record by the parties and accordingly, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgments passed by learned Courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed as prayed for. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents argued that though the learned appellate Court had rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants/plaintiffs, however, learned first appellate Court erred in setting aside the findings which were returned by learned trial Court in favour of the defendants. According to Mr. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents argued that though the learned appellate Court had rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants/plaintiffs, however, learned first appellate Court erred in setting aside the findings which were returned by learned trial Court in favour of the defendants. According to Mr. Sood, the findings so arrived at by learned appellate Court were totally unsustainable in law because according to him, learned first appellate Court had erred in holding that Ex. D1 to Ex. D4 did not prove the case of the defendants because these documents pertained to some other property and not to the suit land. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. 13. The right of first appeal conferred by Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a valuable legal right of a litigant. Appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of learned trial Court and the first appeal unless and until restricted by law invites opening of the entire case for rehearing both on question of fact and law. Therefore, it is settled law that the judgment of the appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all issues arising along with the contentions put forth by the parties and while sitting as a Court of first appeal, it is the duty of the Court to deal with all the issues and the findings led by the parties before recording its findings. Not only this, in case the appellate Court reverses a finding of fact returned by learned trial Court, then the appellate Court has to take into consideration the reasons assigned by learned trial Court and then it has to assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. 14. Recently, this Court in Shankar Dass and others Vs. Karam Chand and others, RSA No. 233 of 2003 while dealing with this issue has held as under: “4. It is settled principle of law that right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a valuable legal right of the litigant. Recently, this Court in Shankar Dass and others Vs. Karam Chand and others, RSA No. 233 of 2003 while dealing with this issue has held as under: “4. It is settled principle of law that right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is a very wide like that of learned trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and law in the first appeal. It is duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a different from that of the trial Court. While doing so, the judgment of the appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. While reversing a finding of fact, the appellate Court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial Court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate Court had discharged the duty expected of it. 5. The scope, ambit and power of the first appellate court while deciding the first appeal have been subject matter of various judicial pronouncements and I may refer to a recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shasidhar and others vs. Smt. Ashwini Uma Mathad and another 2015 AIR SCW 777 wherein it was held as follows: “11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and examining the issue arising in this appeal, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. 12. The powers of the first appellate Court, while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code, are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. 13. 12. The powers of the first appellate Court, while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code, are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. 13. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge –V.R. Krishna Iyer, J (as His Lordship then was the judge of Kerala High Court) while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in Kurian Chacko vs. Varkey Ouseph, AIR 1969 Kerala 316, reminded the first appellate Court of its duty as to how the first appeal under Section 96 should be decided. In his distinctive style of writing and subtle power of expression, the learned judge held as under: “1. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in two Courts, has come up here aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit which was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to the property as also his possession and claimed both in himself. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings against the plaintiff both on title and possession. But, in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the whole matter glibly and briefly, in a few sentences. 2. An appellate court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case the learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an appellate Court. Although there is furious contest between the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent, they appear to agree with me in this observation.....” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court in a number of cases while affirming and then reiterating the aforesaid principle has laid down the scope and powers of the first appellate Court under Section 96 of the Code. 15. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 16. In Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs . (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under: “.........the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. 15. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 16. In Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs . (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under: “.........the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court......while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court ... and then as sign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it............” 17. The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar & Ors.v. Sangram & Ors. , (2001) 4 SCC 756 , wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 18. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court (at p. 244) stated as under: “3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.” 19. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa & Anr. (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code this Court (at pp. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.” 19. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa & Anr. (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code this Court (at pp. 303 -04) observed as follows: “2. A court of first appeal can re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion.........” 20. Again in B.V Nagesh & Anr.vs. H.V.Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530 , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: “3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, ... therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions putforth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v.Purushottam Tiwari , (2001) 3 SCC 179 at p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v.Sangram , (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758, para 5.) 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.” 21. The aforementioned cases were relied upon by this Court while reiterating the same principle in State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr. (2011) 12 SCC 174 . This Court has recently taken the same view on similar facts arising in Vinod Kumar vs. Gangadhar, 2014(12) Scale 171 .” 6. Similar issue came up very recently before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Lakshman and others, Civil Appeal No. 920 of 2008, decided on 29.6.2016, wherein it was held:- “22. It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in first appeal. It is the duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a conclusion different from that of the Trial Court. 23. It is the duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a conclusion different from that of the Trial Court. 23. Similarly, the powers of the first appellate Court while deciding the first appeal are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. It is apposite to take note of the law on this issue. 24. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge – V.R. Krishna Iyer, J (as His Lordship then was the judge of Kerala High Court) while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in Kurian Chacko vs. Varkey Ouseph, AIR 1969 Kerala 316, reminded the first appellate Court of its duty to decide the first appeal. In his distinctive style of writing with subtle power of expression, the learned judge held as under: “1. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in two Courts, has come up here aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit which was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to the property as also his possession and claimed both in himself. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings against the plaintiff both on title and possession. But, in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the whole matter glibly and briefly, in a few sentences. 2. An appellate court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case the learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an appellate Court. Although there is furious contest between the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent, they appear to agree with me in this observation…..” (Emphasis supplied) 25. This Court also in various cases reiterated the aforesaid principle and laid down the powers of the appellate Court under Section 96 of the Code while deciding the first appeal. 26. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 27. In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. This Court also in various cases reiterated the aforesaid principle and laid down the powers of the appellate Court under Section 96 of the Code while deciding the first appeal. 26. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 27. In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under: “.……..the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court……while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it…………” 28. The above view was followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar & Ors. v. Sangram & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 756 , wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 29. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court (at p. 244) stated as under: (SCC para 3) “3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.” 30. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.” 30. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa & Anr., ( 2005 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court (at pp. 303-04) observed as follows: (SCC para 2) “2. A court of first appeal can re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion……...” 31. Again in B.V Nagesh & Anr. vs. H.V Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530 , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: “3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 at p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758, para 5.) 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.” 32. The aforementioned cases were relied upon by this Court while reiterating the same principle in State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 174 .” 15. Coming to the facts of the present case, the first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of learned trial Court has also set aside the findings which were recorded by learned trial Court in favour of the defendants. Learned appellate Court has also held that the entries in favour of predecessor-in interest of plaintiff as contained in Ex.-P1 and Ex.-P2 were stray entries. 16. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned appellate Court will demonstrate that while reversing the findings of learned trial Court, it has not at all adverted to the reasons arrived by learned trial Court. In fact, what the learned appellate Court has done is that it has simply chosen to write a separate judgment. 16. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned appellate Court will demonstrate that while reversing the findings of learned trial Court, it has not at all adverted to the reasons arrived by learned trial Court. In fact, what the learned appellate Court has done is that it has simply chosen to write a separate judgment. Even while dismissing the case of the plaintiff as an appellate Court, rather than adjudicating on the grounds of appeal on which the appeal was preferred, learned appellate Court has dealt with the matter as if it was the Court of first instance and was hearing the suit itself. 17. In view of the exposition of law in the judgment passed by this Court in Shankar Dass and others Vs. Karam Chand and others, RSA No. 233 of 2003 dated 07.07.2016, the judgment passed by learned first appellate Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1999/RBT No. 76/04 dated 28.12.2006 is set aside and the case is remanded back to learned first appellate Court for decision afresh. Parties are directed to appear before learned appellate Court on 14th September, 2016. Keeping in view the fact that the Civil Suit was filed as far back as in the year 1994, learned first appellate Court shall decide the appeal in accordance with law on or before 31st April, 2017. Registry is directed to send the records of the case forthwith. No order as to costs.