JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J: By way of this appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una in Civil Appeal No. 133/98 RBT No. 123/04/98 dated 21.12.2006, vide which, learned appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the present respondents, has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, in Civil Suit No. 119/1986 dated 29.06.1998, whereby the learned trial Court had decreed the suit for permanent injunction filed by the present appellants. 2. This appeal was admitted on 29.12.2007 on the following substantial questions of law: ?1. Whether the licence can be legally proved to have been created without there being any writing or non-producing the licensor/owner? 2. Whether the entry of possession reflected after deleting the name of the earlier possessor without serving any notice or without affording any opportunity to such owner, can raise the presumption of truth to him and contrary approach of the learned lower appellate Court is not legally sustainable? 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that predecessor in interest of present appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as =the plaintiffs') filed a suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner and from taking forcible possession of land measuring 1KL.-5MLs. being 25/37th share, out of land measuring 1KL.-17MLs. bearing Khewat No. 92, Khatauni No. 130, Khasra No. 1123, as per jamabandi for the year 1981-82, situated in village Jankaur, Tehsil and District Una (hereinafter referred to as =suit land') and further restraining the respondents/defendants from demolishing the =Chhapar' in the suit land. The case of the plaintiff (since expired) was that he was owner in possession of the suit land and defendants had no right, title or interest over the same. As per the plaintiff, defendants who were headstrong persons threatened the plaintiff to interfere and to take forcible possession of the suit land and further to demolish the =Chhapar' which was situated over the same. As per the plaintiff, defendants who were headstrong persons threatened the plaintiff to interfere and to take forcible possession of the suit land and further to demolish the =Chhapar' which was situated over the same. It was further the case of the plaintiff that he had requested the defendants many a times not to interfere, not to take forcible possession of the suit land and not to demolish the =Chhapar' existing on the suit land but defendants refused to accede to the requests of plaintiff and accordingly, on these bases, suit was filed by the plaintiff. 4. Defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff and stated in the written statement that the plaintiff was not the owner in possession of the suit land. According to the defendants, they were coming in possession of the suit land as licensee under the owners/preempter (not the plaintiff) and had constructed a =Chhapar' over the suit land which was being used by them only, to the exclusion of the plaintiff. It was further the case of the defendants that earlier plaintiff alongwith his sons had made an attempt to take forcible possession over the suit land for which criminal proceedings were also initiated. On these bases, claim of the plaintiff was denied by the defendants 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: ?1. Whether the defendants are licensees over the suit land as alleged? OPD 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued? OPD 6. Relief.? 6. On the basis of evidence adduced by the respective parties in support of their respective claims, the following findings were returned by learned trial Court on the issues so framed: ?Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2: No. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No. Issue No. 5: No. Relief: Suit decreed for permanent injunction against the defendants as per operative part of judgment.? 7. It was held by the learned trial Court that plaintiff who entered the witness box as PW1 stated that he had purchased the suit land from Roshan Lal and had constructed a shed thereupon. 7. It was held by the learned trial Court that plaintiff who entered the witness box as PW1 stated that he had purchased the suit land from Roshan Lal and had constructed a shed thereupon. Learned trial Court further held that PW1 Brahma Nand had deposed in the Court that Roshan Lal had filed a suit for preemption which was decided in favour of plaintiff and he remained in possession of the suit land and Roshan Lal had filed an execution petition for possession of the suit land which was dismissed. In his cross examination, he stated that he had paid the sale price to daughter of Roshan Lal and the factum of any case having been registered against him was also denied. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that this witness deposed that after the preemption suit, Roshan Lal had obtained the money from Surjeet Singh and given possession of the suit land to Surjeet Singh. Learned trial Court further held that in rebuttal , defendant Surjeet Singh had examined himself as DW-1 and also examined Kishan Singh, Ravinder Kumar, Mohabat Rai and Bishan Dass. Learned trial Court took note of the fact that DW1 Surjeet Singh stated that suit land was owned by Roshan Lal which was sold by him to Brahma Nand but Smt. Rakesh Kumari, daughter of Roshan Lal had filed a suit for preemption in the year 1968 which was decided in her favour and preemption amount was received by Brahma Nand. As per defendants, thereafter Roshan Lal gave this land to them who constructed a house over the same and also paid the amount of said land to Roshan Lal. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that defendants were never dispossessed by Roshan Lal from the suit land and the plaintiff never came in possession of the suit land. It was taken note of by the learned trial Court that defendants stated that when plaintiff and his sons came to dispossess defendants from the suit land forcibly by demolishing the house, a case under Section 325 of IPC was registered against them. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that DW2 Kishan Singh had stated that defendant was in possession of the suit land and plaintiff never came in possession of the same. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that DW2 Kishan Singh had stated that defendant was in possession of the suit land and plaintiff never came in possession of the same. It was also taken note of by the learned trial Court that in cross examination this witness admitted that there was civil litigation between him and Brahma Nand. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that plaintiff had produced copy of jamabandi for the year 1981- 82 Ext. P-1, as per which, suit land was shown to be in joint ownership and possession of Rattan Chand s/o Pratap Singh and Brahma Nand s/o Salig Ram and Ext. P-2 was the copy of khasra girdawari for the years 1982 to 1986, contents of which were almost similar. It was also taken note of by the learned trial Court that defendants had filed copy of Khatauni Ext. D-1, in which the suit land was shown in the joint ownership of Rattan Chand and Brahma Nand and in the possession of Surjeet Singh and Ram Parkash. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that Ext. D-2 was the copy of judgment of Sub Judge 2nd Class, Una. In the said suit, Smt. Rakesh Kumari, daughter of Roshan Lal had filed suit for possession through preemption which was decreed and plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs. 400/- on or before 28.02.1967, failing which suit of the plaintiff shall stand dismissed. Learned trial Court also took note of Ext. D-3, copy of khasra girdawari for the years 1982 to 1986 and Ext. D-4, copy of MIsal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid for the year 1987-88 in which suit land was shown in joint ownership of plaintiff Rattana and in possession of defendant. It was held by learned trial Court that oral and documentary evidence on record proved that the suit land was owned and possessed by Sh. Roshan Lal and the same was purchased from him by plaintiff Brahma Nand and a suit was filed by Kumari Rakesh d/o Roshan Lal for possession by way of preemption which was decreed subject to depositing preemption amount of Rs. 400/- on or before 28.02.1967, but there was nothing on record to show that this amount had ever been paid or deposited on or before 28.02.1967 by the plaintiff Brahma Nand nor there was any order of dismissal of suit. 400/- on or before 28.02.1967, but there was nothing on record to show that this amount had ever been paid or deposited on or before 28.02.1967 by the plaintiff Brahma Nand nor there was any order of dismissal of suit. Learned trial Court further held that execution petition filed by Rakesh Kumari was dismissed in default on 17.11.1984. It was held by the learned trial Court that Kumari Rakesh had not obtained the possession of the suit land from the plaintiff through preemption, which established that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and the same was never delivered to Rakesh Kumari. It was held by the learned trial Court that the plea of defendants that they are licensees of the suit land was not proved on record. Learned trial Court further held that the defendants did not examine Roshan Lal or his daughter Rakesh Kumari nor there was any record to prove as to how and when possession of the suit land was given to the defendants. Learned trial Court further held that though plaintiff in his statement had mentioned that the suit for preemption was decided in his favour but a perusal of statement of plaintiff revealed that he was an illiterate person and on these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that it could not be said that plaintiff was aware of legal complications of the decision. It was further held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff in fact was in possession of the suit land since possession thereof had not been taken from him by the true owner i.e. Smt. Rakesh Kumari nor the true owner stepped into witness box to deny this fact that possession of the suit land was not with the plaintiff. Accordingly, on these bases, the suit so filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned trial Court, defendants filed an appeal. Learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and allowed the appeal by dismissing the suit so filed by the plaintiff. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned trial Court, defendants filed an appeal. Learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and allowed the appeal by dismissing the suit so filed by the plaintiff. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court demonstrates that while coming to the conclusion that the suit land was not in possession of the plaintiff but rather was in possession of the defendant, it took note of the fact that the plaintiff had not disclosed in his pleadings as to how he had become owner of the suit land and had not come to the Court with clean hands as the factum of Roshan Lal being the owner of the suit land and the factum of suit for preemption having been filed by the daughter of Roshan Lal, which was decided on 19.12.1986, was not disclosed in the plaint. Learned Appellate Court took note of the fact that rather in his statement plaintiff (PW1) was claiming that the said suit was decided in his favour. On these bases, it was held by the learned Appellate Court that such like conduct of the plaintiff created a doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether plaintiff was entitled to be granted the relief of injunction. It was further held by the learned Appellate Court that in the plaint, plaintiff had not explained his source of ownership but while appearing as PW1 he had deposed about his source of ownership and previous litigation between the parties. Learned Appellate Court observed that it was strange that he had not deposed even a single word qua accruing of cause of action against the defendants. It was further held by the learned Appellate Court that it was nowhere mentioned in the plaint that defendants were threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land or were threatening to interfere with his possession. It was further held that there was no other evidence on record to prove the cause of action as plaintiff had not examined any other witness except himself. It was further held that there was no other evidence on record to prove the cause of action as plaintiff had not examined any other witness except himself. It was further held by the learned Appellate Court that nowhere execution petition filed by daughter of Roshan Lal for possession was dismissed in default but simply because of this it could not be said that possession was still with the plaintiff. Learned trial Court observed that there was always a possibility of out of Court settlement. It further held that plaintiff in his examination in chief had stated that he had received money and if he had received the preemption money, the possibility of handing over possession by him to the daughter of owner may also be there. On these bases it was held by learned Appellate Court that that was why the entry came in favour of defendants in the latest revenue record as discussed above. It further held that there was nothing on record to show that plaintiff ever challenged the entries mentioned in Ext. D-X and, therefore, it was difficult to say that plaintiff was still in possession of the suit land. On these bases, it was concluded by the learned Appellate Court that learned trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and accordingly learned Appellate Court while settling aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit so filed by the plaintiff. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. 10. It is clearly borne out from the findings which have been returned by the learned Appellate Court while concluding that the suit land was in possession of the defendants and not the plaintiff that the same are based on conjectures and not based on material on record. The relevant extract of the findings so returned by the learned Appellate Court are reproduced below:- •?No doubt the execution petition filed by the daughter of Roshan Lal for possession was dismissed in default but simply because of it, it cannot be said that the possession is still with the plaintiff. There is always a possibility of out of the Court settlement and it is not necessary to take possession through Court. There is always a possibility of out of the Court settlement and it is not necessary to take possession through Court. •?He as stated in his chief examination even that he had received the preemption money. If he had received the money then possibility of handing over possession by him to the daughter to owner may also be there. •?It is pertinent to note that there is nothing on the record to show that the plaintiff ever challenged these entries in Ext. DX. So it is very difficult to say that the plaintiff is still in possession of the suit land. 11. I am afraid that the findings so arrived at by learned appellate Court are not sustainable. The findings of fact by a Court of law cannot be based on presumptions. On the basis of material adduced on record by both the parties, the Court has to give a definite finding. 12. Learned trial Court after appreciating material on record held that the plaintiff had proved that he was in exclusive possession of the suit land and on these bases, learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. This Court is not making any observation as to whether the finding so returned by learned trial Court was correct or not. However, in my considered view, in case the finding arrived at by learned trial Court was to be set aside or distinguished by learned appellate Court, then it was obvious that after taking into consideration the reasonings behind the findings so arrived at by learned trial Court, learned appellate Court should have had returned its independent findings which were to be arrived at on the basis of material on record and not on the basis of conjectures, surmises or presumptions. However, this has not been done by the learned appellate Court in the judgment under challenge. 13. It is well settled law that the first appellate Court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full, fair and independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage and anything less than this is unjust to him. 13. It is well settled law that the first appellate Court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full, fair and independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage and anything less than this is unjust to him. The appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court and first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on question of fact and law. It is settled law that 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. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all the issues involved in the case alongwith the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for decision by the appellate Court. 14. In view of the above salutary principles, I am of the considered view that the learned appellate Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as first appellate Court by deciding the appeal on presumptions rather than returning its findings by coming close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court and thereafter assigning its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. 15. In view of the discussion held above, the appeal is allowed and judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, in Civil Appeal No. 133/98 RBT No. 123/04/98 are set aside. The case is remanded back to learned appellate Court i.e. Fast Track Court, Una with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits. Parties through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the learned appellate Court on 12.12.2016. Keeping in view the fact that case pertains to the year 1986, this Court hopes and trusts that learned appellate Court shall adjudicate upon the appeal as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. Keeping in view the fact that case pertains to the year 1986, this Court hopes and trusts that learned appellate Court shall adjudicate upon the appeal as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. Registry is directed to return back the records of the case to learned appellate Court forthwith.