JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 77-S/13 of 2004 dated 23.05.2006, vide which, learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasauli, District Solan in Civil Suit No. 332/1 of 1999/1994 dated 10.09.2004, whereby the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration and injunction on the grounds that land comprised in Khata No. 5 min, Khatauni No. 8, Khasra No. 129, measuring 5 bighas was recorded in the name of plaintiff as owner and defendant had been shown in possession of the said land as per entries in copy of jamabandi for the year 1992-93 for Mauza Chainthu, Pargna Nali Dharti, Tehsil Kasauli. As per the plaintiff, suit land was in possession of Smt. Durgi, who died in the year 1986 and the revenue entries showing Smt. Durgi to be tenant in possession of the suit land were wrong and illegal. Smt. Durgi was real sister of mother of Shri Harnam Singh and she and her husband were economically not well off and due to this reason, Smt. Chawali, who was Bhabi and close relative of Harnam Singh had given suit land for use and possession to late Shri Hem Ram and after the death of Hem Ram to Smt. Durgi. It was further the case of the plaintiff that possession of Smt. Durgi was permissive but in the revenue record, she was shown as Gair Marusi and revenue entries showing Smt. Durgi or Sh. Hem Ram as Gair Marusi were wrong, illegal and void. As per the plaintiff, neither Sh. Hem Ram nor Smt. Durgi were ever inducted as tenants over the suit land nor they had any right, title or interest to possess the suit land in any manner. Hem Ram as Gair Marusi were wrong, illegal and void. As per the plaintiff, neither Sh. Hem Ram nor Smt. Durgi were ever inducted as tenants over the suit land nor they had any right, title or interest to possess the suit land in any manner. It was further the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Smt. Durgi, defendant in connivance with revenue staff succeeded in manipulating revenue entries in his favour and in the column of possession entry as “Gopal Singh Putar Sohandu Ram Putar Paras Ram Sakan Deh Gair Marusi Baruai Vasiyat” was incorporated. As per the plaintiff, said revenue entry was manipulated and incorporated behind the back of late Smt. Chawali, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. It was further the case of the plaintiff that Durgi was old, weak, village simpleton and indecisive lady, who had never executed any Will in favour of the defendant. As per the plaintiff, the Will was a result of fraud, misrepresentation and manipulation and in fact Durgi was not having any right, title and interest in the suit land except to possess the same under permission and as such, Durgi could not have had executed any Will qua the suit land. It was further the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Durgi, Smt. Chawali became owner in possession of the suit land and permissive possession of Durgi came to an end. It was further the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Durgi, defendant started interfering with the ownership and possession of late Smt. Chawali over the suit land, who requested the defendant not to do so. After the death of Smt. Chawali, defendant again started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land on the basis of wrong revenue entries existing in favour of the defendant, whereas plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land and defendant who was stranger to the suit land has no right, title or interest over the suit land in any manner whatsoever. On these basis, plaintiff prayed for a decree in his favour to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and revenue entries in favour of the defendant qua the suit land were wrong and illegal and that defendant had no right, title or interest over the same. On these basis, plaintiff prayed for a decree in his favour to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and revenue entries in favour of the defendant qua the suit land were wrong and illegal and that defendant had no right, title or interest over the same. Plaintiff also prayed that defendant be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any manner whatsoever and in the alternative, decree for possession on the basis of title was prayed for. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the case as was set up by the plaintiff was denied. As per the defendant, the predecessor-in-interest of defendant late Smt. Durgi was a tenant qua the suit land and she was inducted as tenant over Khasra No. 129, measuring 5 bighas on a Chaukauta of Rs. 3/- per annum and she was inducted as such by Jhathu, son of Shibu. It was further the case of the defendant that after the death of Jhathu, Smt. Chawli, his widow succeeded vide mutation No. 128 and mutation of ownership could not be attested by operation of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act as Smt. Chawali happened to be a widow, but the confirmation of proprietary rights were automatic by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and revenue records with regard to tenancy were in accordance with the physical possession of the defendant. It was further the case of the defendant that he succeeded to the suit property by way of Will of Smt. Durgi registered with Sub Registrar dated 17.08.1986 and the same was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. It was further the case of the defendant that Durgi of her free will and senses had executed a valid Will in favour of the defendant and the contention of the plaintiff with regard to execution of Will was wrong and hence denied. It was further the case of the defendant that Chawali was not succeeded by any one including the plaintiff and Chawali had never executed any Will in favour of defendant nor there was any question of execution of any Will as she had never intended to Will her property and in case plaintiff had obtained any Will in his favour, the same was result of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of his father. On these bases, the suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues : “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and revenue entries showing possession of the defendant is wrong and liable to be corrected and the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the defendant is causing interference in possession of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 7. Relief. 5. 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 Yes Relief Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as per the operative portion of the judgment. 6. While dismissing the suit so filed by the plaintiff, it was held by the learned trial Court that it stood proved on record that predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Hem Raj was recorded as tenant on Chokata, i.e. Batai and he was succeeded by Durgi, who had legally become owner in possession qua the suit land during her life time and as such, she was competent to execute Will in favour of Gopal Singh. Learned trial Court further held that proprietary rights were not challenged and revenue record suggested ownership and possession of defendant apart from admissions made by plaintiff’s witnesses PW-2 and PW-3, who admitted the Will executed in favour of defendant and possession of defendant over the suit land. Learned trial Court further held that Girdwari was conducted twice in the year, which bears the official presumption and plaintiff never questioned the same. It was further held by the learned trial Court that Sub-section (4) of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act provided that whenever dispute arose whether a person cultivating the land of a land owner was a tenant or not, the burden of proving that such a person was not a tenant of the land was on the land owner. It further held that there was no evidence available on record that possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff. Learned trial Court further held that there was no evidence on record regarding interference being caused by defendant over the alleged possession of the plaintiff. It was held by the learned trial Court that there was rather evidence on record regarding defendant being owner in possession over the suit land and also confirmation of proprietary rights in his favour and in the absence of possession of plaintiff, it could not be alleged that defendant was interfering as claimed by the plaintiff. It was further held by the learned trial Court that since plaintiff was out of possession, hence he could not assert regarding alleged interference. Learned trial Court further held that suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable as tenancy dispute could only be entertained under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, which was a complete Code in itself. On these bases, the suit so filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal. Learned appellate Court vide its judgment dated 23.05.2006 dismissed the appeal so filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. In its judgment, learned appellate Court in para-6 of the same reproduced the grounds on which the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was challenged before it. Thereafter, it was held by the learned appellate Court that the claim of the plaintiff that the land was given to Durgi Devi and her husband in view of their economic position and their possession was permissive deserved outright rejection as it was somewhere in the year 1958-59 that husband of Durgi came to be recorded as non-occupancy tenant over the suit land and land remained in his continuous possession and after his death, his wife Durgi Devi came in possession of the same and after her death, land came in possession of the defendant. Learned appellate Court held that at no point of time, possession of land had gone back to Chawali after the death of Durgi Devi as was claimed by the plaintiff. Learned appellate Court held that at no point of time, possession of land had gone back to Chawali after the death of Durgi Devi as was claimed by the plaintiff. It was further held by the learned appellate Court that long standing entries in the revenue record belied the claim of the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land. Learned appellate Court further held that no doubt plaintiff was recorded as owner of the suit land after the death of Chawali on the basis of Will, but after conferment of proprietary rights upon the defendant rightly or wrongly, he ceased to be owner of the suit land. In the same breath, it was held by the learned appellate Court that it was true that Durgi Devi under law could not have made any Will of the land of which she was tenant, but Durgi had become entitled to acquire proprietary rights over the land in the year 1974 during the life time of Jhathu, husband of Chawali, though for the reasons best known, no such mutation was sanctioned in favour of Durgi Devi and she continued to be recorded as non-occupancy tenant. Learned appellate Court held that in reality she should have become owner of the suit land as no steps for the resumption of the land has been taken by Jhathu as provided under Section 104 of the Act. It was held by the learned appellate Court that Will executed by Durgi Devi could not be said to be against the provisions of law as she at that time was certainly owner of the suit land and name of Chawali had been wrongly shown in the column of ownership after the death of Jhathu in 1976. On these bases, learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal so filed by the plaintiff. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees so passed by both the learned Courts below, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. 9. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 16.11.2006 on the following substantial questions of law : “Whether the finding of the first Appellate Court that Durgi acquired proprietary rights in respect of the suit land, being a tenant, during the life time of Chawali, who (Chawali) was herself a widow and had inherited the suit property from her husband late Jhathu, is illegal? 10. 10. 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. 11. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court demonstrates that learned appellate Court returned the finding that Jhathu husband of Chawali appears to have died in the year 1976 as mutation of inheritance in favour of Chawali was sanctioned on 11.03.1976. On these bases, it was held by the learned appellate Court that by virtue of the provisions of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Reforms Act, Durgi Devi had become entitled to acquire proprietary rights of land in the year 1974 during the life time of Jhathu. However, a perusal of the judgment so passed by the learned trial Court demonstrates that it is not substantiated therein as to from where this conclusion was arrived at by the learned appellate Court that Jhathu died in the year 1976. Incidentally, in the present case, defendant was conferred proprietary rights of the suit land vide mutation dated 30.09.2000. In my considered view, if Durgi Devi had become owner of the suit land by operation of the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, then obviously on the strength of the Will executed by her allegedly in favour of the defendant, the defendant should have had become owner of the said property on the strength of the Will so executed in his favour and there was no occasion for conferring proprietary rights of the suit land upon him vide mutation dated 30.09.2000. But, it is an undisputed fact that when the alleged Will was executed by Durgi Devi in favour of the defendant, she had not been conferred upon proprietary rights or in other words, she was not owner of the suit land. Even learned appellate Court held that Durgi Devi under law could not have made Will of the land of which she was tenant. Incidentally, the findings so returned by the learned appellate Court have not been assailed by the defendant. Even learned appellate Court held that Durgi Devi under law could not have made Will of the land of which she was tenant. Incidentally, the findings so returned by the learned appellate Court have not been assailed by the defendant. However, whereas on one hand, it was held by the learned appellate Court that Durgi Devi could not have made Will of the land of which she was tenant, learned appellate Court on the other hand ventured to thereafter return findings to the effect that as H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 became effective law w.e.f. 21.02.1971 after its publication in Rajpatra dated 21.02.1974 and after receiving assent of the President of India on 02.02.1971 and as Jhathu, husband of Chawali appeared to have died in the year 1976 as mutation of inheritance in favour of Chawali was sanctioned on 11.03.1976, therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, Durgi Devi had become entitled for acquiring proprietary rights of the land in the year 1974 during the lifetime of Jhathu and though no mutation had been sanctioned in this regard in her favour, but Durgi Devi continued to be recorded as non-occupancy tenant, whereas in reality, she should have become owner of the land as no steps for resumption of the land has been taken by Jhathu, therefore, in this view of the matter, the Will executed by Durgi Devi could not be said to be executed against the provisions of law as she at that time was certainly owner of the suit land and name of Chawali had been wrongly shown in the column of ownership after the death of Jhathu in the year 1976 12. I am afraid that the findings so returned by the learned appellate Court cannot be upheld. This is for the reason that the findings so returned by the learned appellate Court are not substantiated from the records of the case, but rather based on conjectures and surmises. From what material on record learned appellate Court drew the above inferences is not apparent or evident from the findings so returned by the learned appellate Court. 13. This is for the reason that the findings so returned by the learned appellate Court are not substantiated from the records of the case, but rather based on conjectures and surmises. From what material on record learned appellate Court drew the above inferences is not apparent or evident from the findings so returned by the learned appellate Court. 13. Further, though the learned appellate Court in its judgment has taken note of the grounds of appeal on which the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court were assailed before it by the plaintiff, however, none of these grounds have been dealt with by the learned appellate Court and in fact it went on to adjudicate upon the matter as if it was trying an original suit. The reasonings given by the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff have also not been discussed vis-à-vis the grounds of appeal taken by the plaintiff before the learned 1st appellate Court to assail the findings so returned by the learned trial Court. 14. In my considered view, findings of fact by a Court of law cannot be based on presumptions/conjectures and surmises. It has to be on the basis of material adduced on record by the parties that the Court has to give definite findings on fact. 15. 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. 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. 16. 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. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. In view of the discussion held above, the appeal is allowed and judgment and decree dated 23.05.2006 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 77-S/13 of 2004 are set aside. The case is remanded back to learned appellate Court 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 19.12.2016. Keeping in view the fact that case pertains to the year 1994, this Court hopes and trusts that learned appellate Court shall adjudicate upon the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months. 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.