JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC against judgment and decree dated 17.8.2005 rendered by the learned ADJ.., Fast Track, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 18/2005, whereby judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu (HP) in Civil Suit No. 35 of 2004, has been modified. 2. Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that the appellant-plaintiff (herein after, ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents-defendants (hereinafter, ‘defendants’) from causing any sort of interference in his ownership and possession over land comprised in Khasra No. 117 contained in Khata Khatauni No. 456 min/496 min, as per Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 situated in Phati Palach, Kothi Palach, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh (herein after, ‘suit land’) and residential house situated in the Abadi owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that the suit land was earlier owned and possessed by his father, Shri Khinthu, who executed a registered Will dated 16.4.1985, in his favour as well as his brother Puran Singh. As per plaintiff, after death of their father, they became owner-in-possession of the suit land. Plaintiff further claimed that his father disinherited his daughter i.e. defendant No.1, who was married during his life time and, since then, she had been residing in the matrimonial house, with her husband. Plaintiff termed defendants to be strangers to the suit land/property stating that they have no right, title or interest over the suit land. But since defendants started interfering in the owner-in-possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, without there being any right or title, he was compelled to file instant suit seeking therein permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, as stated above. 3. Defendants, by way of detailed written statement, refuted aforesaid contentions of the plaintiff. Defendants stated that the residential house is not standing over the suit land, but the same has been constructed by them, over the Government land and for the last 30 years, they have been residing therein. Defendants claimed that their possession over the house, as mentioned above, is without interruption and to the notice and knowledge of the public at large as well as plaintiff, and, a such, they have become owners by way of adverse possession. Defendants claimed that their possession over the house, as mentioned above, is without interruption and to the notice and knowledge of the public at large as well as plaintiff, and, a such, they have become owners by way of adverse possession. Defendants neither disputed the execution of Will in favour of the plaintiff and his brother, nor their ownership and possession over the suit land. Rather, defendants claimed themselves to be owner of land adjoining to the suit land, which actually belonged to the Government. As per the defendants, Government land was encroached and made cultivable by defendant No.1 and plaintiff had no concern with the encroached land. While seeking dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff, defendants further claimed that they never interfered in the ownership of the plaintiff, rather, he wants to dispossess them from encroached land and house, which is under their possession. Similarly, defendants claimed that crop was harvested from encroached land, which was sown by them. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings framed following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the prohibitory injunction prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands as alleged. If so, its effect? OPD 6. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A CPC as claimed, if so, their quantum? OPD 7. Whether the defendants have become the owners of the property by way of adverse possession as alleged. If so, its effect? OPD 8. Relief.” 5. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings as well as material and evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants by a decree of perpetual injunction from interfering in the peaceful owner-in-possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, in any manner, whatsoever or dispossessing him, harvesting his crops. Feeling aggrieved, defendants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu under Section 90 CPC, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 18/05/11/2005. Feeling aggrieved, defendants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu under Section 90 CPC, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 18/05/11/2005. Learned Additional District Judge, partly allowed the appeal of the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court restraining the defendants from interfering in the Abadi, whereas held plaintiff to be owner-in-possession suit land. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff approached this Court by filing the instant Regular Second Appeal, praying therein for setting aside judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and restoring the judgment and decree of learned trial Court. 6. Present regular second appeal was admitted on 6.10.2005, on the following substantial questions of law: “1 Whether the learned Appellate Court below have totally misread and misappreciated the facts of the case and evidence on record, and whether judgment and decree based on misappreciated evidence is sustainable in law? 2. Whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court in setting aside the finding of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kullu restraining the defendant from interfering in the “abadi'” is bad because it was never challenged by the defendant?” 7. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel representing the plaintiff vehemently argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, rather same is result of misappreciation of pleadings as well as evidence available on record and as such same deserve to be set aside. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Jamalta invited attention of this Court to the plaint having been filed by the plaintiff to demonstrate that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that he and his brother Shri Puran Singh, are owner-in-possession of suit land measuring 3-9-0 Bigha comprising of Khasra No. 117 alongwith residential house standing therein. Mr. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Jamalta invited attention of this Court to the plaint having been filed by the plaintiff to demonstrate that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that he and his brother Shri Puran Singh, are owner-in-possession of suit land measuring 3-9-0 Bigha comprising of Khasra No. 117 alongwith residential house standing therein. Mr. Jamalta further invited attention of this Court to paragraph 20 of the judgment of first appellate Court to suggest that the findings returned in the same are contrary to the pleadings because plaintiff has specifically pleaded in para-1 of the plaint with regard to existence of residential house on the suit land but the learned first appellate Court wrongly concluded that the plaintiff has only mentioned with regard to Abadi in the head note of the plaint and as such, findings being contrary to the record deserve to be set aside. Mr. Jamalta also made this Court to travel through the written statement having been filed by the defendants as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties to demonstrate that defendants themselves admitted the plaintiff to be owner-in-possession of the suit land as well as residential house situate on the same. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Jamalta forcefully contended that once there was a candid admission on the part of defendants with regard to ownership and possession of plaintiff on suit land as well as house, there was no occasion for the first appellate Court to set aside well reasoned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court as such he prayed that judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court may be set aside and that of learned trial Court be restored. 8. Mr. C.S. Thakur, learned counsel representing the defendants supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. Mr. Thakur, strenuously argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court, rather, same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, and as such there is no scope of interference. While inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment, Mr. Mr. Thakur, strenuously argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court, rather, same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, and as such there is no scope of interference. While inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment, Mr. Thakur forcefully contended that each and every aspect of the matter has been dealt with meticulously by the first appellate Court and as such there is no force in the contentions of the learned counsel representing the plaintiff that the first appellate Court has misappreciated and misconstrued the pleadings as well as evidence. Mr. Thakur further contended that onus was upon the plaintiff to prove on record that 1 ½ storeyed house, as claimed by him, existed on suit land, by placing on record cogent and convincing evidence, but, admittedly, there is no evidence, be it ocular or documentary, suggestive of the fact that 1 ½ storeyed house exists over the suit land, whereas, defendants specifically proved on record that two storeyed house exists over the land adjoining to the suit land, which is owned and possessed by them. In this background, Mr. Thakur, prayed that there is no merit in the appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff and as such same deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. Since both the substantial questions of law are interconnected, as such, same are being taken up together, to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 10. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the pleadings as well as evidence available on record, be it ocular or documentary, perusal whereof certainly suggests that learned first appellate Court misdirected itself while scrutinizing/ analyzing judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, who, on the basis of material available on record, rightly came to the conclusion that suit property belongs to the plaintiff and defendants have no right and interest over the same, as such, passed decree of injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the suit land. 11. In nutshell, case of the plaintiff is that after expiry of Shri Khinthu, he and his brother Puran Singh became owner-in-possession of the disputed land, on the basis of Will dated 16.4.1985. 11. In nutshell, case of the plaintiff is that after expiry of Shri Khinthu, he and his brother Puran Singh became owner-in-possession of the disputed land, on the basis of Will dated 16.4.1985. Plaintiff has specifically stated in the plaint that even a residential house is standing over the suit land. Defendant No.1, who happens to be sister of the plaintiff, nowhere disputed ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, on the basis of registered Will, rather in unambiguous terms, defendants admitted the claim of the plaintiff with regard to his ownership and possession over the suit land. Plaintiff, by way of suit, claimed that the defendants have started interfering in the ownership and possession over the suit land, without there being any basis and have started forcefully harvesting wheat crop sown on the land in suit. Defendants have altogether set up a different case in the written statement that they have harvested wheat crop on the land adjoining to the suit land, which is owned by the Government but possessed by them. Defendants have gone one step ahead by stating that land adjoining to the suit land was actually encroached by defendant No.1, during the life time of Shri Khinthu and thereafter, they raised two storeyed house on the encroached land and for the last 30 years, they had been residing in the same. Similarly, written statement discloses that neither the defendants have encroached upon the suit land, nor they have any intention to do so. 12. Careful perusal of written statement having been filed by the defendants suggests that though there is denial with regard to existence of residential house over the suit land, which is admittedly owned and possessed by the plaintiff, but there is mention with regard to existence of house possessed by the defendants on the land adjoining to the suit land. But if the stand taken by the defendants is examined/analyzed vis-à-vis averments contained in the plaint, it nowhere emerges that the defendants have disputed the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 13. But if the stand taken by the defendants is examined/analyzed vis-à-vis averments contained in the plaint, it nowhere emerges that the defendants have disputed the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 13. PW-1 Bhag Singh categorically has stated before the Court below that they became owner-in-possession of the suit land, on the basis of a registered Will dated 16.4.1985, after death of their father, Shri Khinthu and 1 ½ storeyed Slate roofed house is also situated over the suit land and defendants have no concern with disputed property. 14. Similarly, PW-2 Sangat Ram corroborated the version of PW-1, Bhag Singh. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that defendants No.1 and 2 also live in Village Palach but denied the suggestion that defendant No.2 built house at Palach. PW-3 Medh Ram stated that he simply went to the spot and prepared the site plan Mark X of the house in question as per the instructions o the plaintiff. 15. Careful perusal of the plaintiff’s evidence certainly compels this Court to infer that plaintiff successfully proved on record that 1 ½ story house exists over the suit land, which is owned and possessed by him as admitted by the defendants. 16. DW-1 Pune Ram, has stated that they have become owners of the encroached land by way of adverse possession. There is nothing in his statement, from where it can be inferred that he disputed ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land pursuant to execution of Will dated 16.4.1985, allegedly executed by Shri Khinthu, in favour of the plaintiff. He simply stated that a double story house is standing over the suit land but in the same breath, he stated that his house is situated over the Government land and he denied that suit property is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Most importantly, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no concern with the house, which is over the land in dispute, meaning thereby, he admitted that the defendants have no claim/right over the house standing on the suit land. Similarly, documentary evidence placed on record i.e. Ext. Most importantly, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no concern with the house, which is over the land in dispute, meaning thereby, he admitted that the defendants have no claim/right over the house standing on the suit land. Similarly, documentary evidence placed on record i.e. Ext. P1, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1996-1997, clearly suggests that late father of the plaintiff Shri Khinthu was exclusive owner in possession of land involved in the suit, which was ultimately mutated in favour of the plaintiff and his brother, Puran Singh vide mutation No. 2356 as stands reflected in the revenue entries made in Ext. D2 i.e. Jamabandi for the year 2001-02. 17. After careful examination of the pleadings as well as evidence led on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that learned first appellate Court failed to appreciate the pleadings as well as evidence available on record in right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings came to be recorded, to the detriment of plaintiff, who successfully proved on record that he is owner-in-possession of the suit land. It is admitted case of the parties that suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Though the defendants by way of pleadings as well as making statement before Court that two storeyed house exists over the suit land, made an attempt to create confusion that house exists over suit land but if evidence is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that 1 ½ storeyed house exists over the suit land comprising of Khasra No. 117. It is not understood that when factum with regard to ownership of plaintiff over suit land was admitted by the defendants, wherein, defendants while admitting ownership also admitted existence of house over suit land, how the learned first appellate Court could set aside decree of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. Otherwise also, matter, if is viewed from another angle, that once Court had come to the conclusion that house is also situated over suit land and suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff, where was the occasion for the first appellate Court to restrain plaintiff from interfering in the Abadi, which is admittedly on his own land, as admitted by the defendants. 18. 18. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and parties have 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 in support of such findings. Though the first appellate Court may be justified in taking a different view on question of facts after adverting to the reasons given by the trial judge in arriving at findings in question. Court of first appeal must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be general and vague. Moreover, when first appellate court reverses findings of trial Court, it is expected to record findings in clear terms specifically stating therein, in what manner, reasoning of trial court is erroneous. The Apex Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh v. S.P. Srivastava reported in (2017) 2 SCC 415 , has held as follows: “13. An appellate court is the final court of facts. The judgment of the appellate court must therefore reflect court’s application of mind and record its findings supported by reasons. The law relating to powers and duties of the first appellate court is well fortified by the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. Considering the nature and scope of duty of first appellate court, in Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar (2015) 1 SCC 391 , it was held as under:- “12. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 188-89, para 15) “15. … 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. … 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 above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar v. Sangram (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. 13. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court stated as under: (SCC p. 244, 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.” 14. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 303, para 2) 15. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. 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: (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-5) “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. 530-31, paras 3-5) “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. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , SCC p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 SCC 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. 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.” 14. The points which arise for determination by a court of first appeal must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be general and vague. Even though the appellate court would be justified in taking a different view on question of fact that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by the trial judge in arriving at the finding in question. When appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by trial court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by trial court would ordinarily suffice. However, when the first appellate court reverses the findings of the trial court, it must record the findings in clear terms explaining how the reasonings of the trial court are erroneous.” 19. In the instant case also, first appellate court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and while differing with the findings recorded by the trail Court, has failed to assign its reasons for doing so. 20. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 21. Consequently, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 17.8.2005 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 18/2005, is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu (HP) in Civil Suit No. 35 of 2004, is upheld. Pending applications are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.