JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.6.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 21-NL/13 of 2003, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2003, passed by the learned Sub- Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in civil Suit No.372/1 of 1998/2001, where by suit for mandatory injunction and in the alternative suit for possession having been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed suit for mandatory injunction and in the alternative suit for possession against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) seeking therein direction to the defendants to handover the possession of the suit property namely one Godown, measuring 19.50 Sq. mtrs, bearing Khasra No. 1034, comprised in khewat/khatauni No. 230/248 min situated in the area of ward No.5, up-muhal Naya Nalagarh, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and for mense profits at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month for use and occupation of the disputed property since 11th October, 1998 till the date of handing over the possession and in the alternative for possession of the suit property. 3. In nutshell, plaintiffs’ case before the court below was that they are owners of the suit property, which was inherited by them from their predecessor-in-title Smt. Vidyawati. As per plaintiffs, predecessor-in-title of the defendants Sh. Madan Lal and Smt. Vidyawati were in possession of the property and there was litigation and the possession of same property was handed over by Smt. Vidyawati to Sh. Madan Lal, who further handed over the possession to Smt. Vidyawati in Khangi Panchayat. Sh. Madan Lal requested said Smt. Vidyawati to give him a store to keep articles as he was in shortage of place and accordingly Smt. Vidyawati handed over the possession to Sh. Madan Lal. After the death of Sh. Madan Lal, defendants continued to be in possession of said store. Since, the plaintiffs were in need of suit property for their own use, they terminated the licence issued on 21.9.1998 and demanded possession on or before 10.10.1998. Since, the defendants failed to handover the possession, plaintiffs filed the instant suit. 4. Madan Lal. After the death of Sh. Madan Lal, defendants continued to be in possession of said store. Since, the plaintiffs were in need of suit property for their own use, they terminated the licence issued on 21.9.1998 and demanded possession on or before 10.10.1998. Since, the defendants failed to handover the possession, plaintiffs filed the instant suit. 4. Defendants opposed the aforesaid claim of the plaintiffs by filing written statement taking there in preliminary objections regarding maintainability and cause of action. Defendants further claimed that Bansi Mal and Banarsi Dass constituted the joint Hindu Family and Bansi Lal was adopted by Sh. Telu Dass and he got the property from Sh. Sh. Telu Dass. Defendants further claimed that Sh. Banarsi Dass was having three sons namely Madan Lal, Bimal Kumar and Jain Dass. Sh. Bansi Mal was helping the family of Sh. Banarsi Dass. Sh. Bimal Kumar wanted to start some business in the year, 1960 and Bansi Mal gave his shop to Bimal Kumar, where in he started the business of making Tin boxes. Sh. Madan Lal was carrying out his business in the rented shop in front of the shop bearing old khasra No.832 and part of the house. Sh. Bansi Mal sold the shop bearing khasra No.832 and part of the house vide sale deed No.16, dated 9.1.1959 to Sh. Madan Lal. But, since the shop was under the possession of Jain Dass, who was conducting Karyana business, he made a proposal that Jain Dass should not be disturbed and it was agreed that shop in possession of Sh. Bimal Kumar shall remain in his possession and this shop will remain in the possession of Jain Dass. Sh. Bansi Mal gave the suit property to Sh. Madan Lal in the month of February, 1959. The predecessor-in-title of defendants, Sh. Madanl Lal and there after the defendants are in peaceful uninterrupted possession as owners and they have become the owners by way of adverse possession. 5. By way of replication, the plaintiffs, while denying the allegations made in the written statement, reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint and controverted the contrary averments made in the written statement. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property? OPP. 2. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property? OPP. 2. Whether the defendants are in use and occupation of the property as licensee? OPP 3. Whether the Licence of the defendants has been revoked? OPP. 4. Whether this suit is property valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of possession? OPP. 6. Whether this suit is not maintainable? OPD. 7. Whether the defendants are owners by way of sale deed No.16, dated 9.1.1959? OPD. 8. Whether the defendants have become owner by way of adverse possession? OPD. 9. Relief:- 7. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.3.2003, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Solan, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.21- NL/13 of 2003. Afore said appeal came to be allowed, as a result of which, judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was quashed and set-aside. In the aforesaid background, the present appellants-defendants approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for restoration of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 9. The instant appeal was admitted on 18.5.2006 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1 Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of non-consideration of the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of complete misreading, misinterpretation as well as misappreciation of EX.P-1 compromise between the parties. 3. Whether the learned lower appellate court being last court of fact has failed to consider the entire oral as well as documentary evidence as required of it in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2000(5) SCC 652 . 4. Whether the learned lower appellate Court is right in not considering the admission made by PW-2 Sh. Rattnu as well as document Ex.P-1, P-9 and P-10. 5. 4. Whether the learned lower appellate Court is right in not considering the admission made by PW-2 Sh. Rattnu as well as document Ex.P-1, P-9 and P-10. 5. Whether the learned lower appellate court is right in not considering the fact that in 1959 since the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable and the appellants had purchased the premises in dispute for a sum of Rs.90/-. 10. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Basant Thakur, Advocate, vehemently argued that the impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. While referring to the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, Mr. Sharma, contended that impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court, is result of complete misreading, misinterpretation as well as misappreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Mr. Sharma, forcibly contended that learned Additional District Judge, has failed to return distinct and separate findings on all the issues while determining the correctness and genuineness of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and as such, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. While placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh (Dead) through his LRs, (2000)5 SCC 652 , Mr. Sharma, strenuously argued that it was incumbent upon the learned first appellate Court being last facts finding Court to consider all the issues and then decide the same by assigning reasons. Mr. Sharma, further contended that first appellate court is final court of fact and as such it ought to have considered and decided all the issues before deciding the appeal having been preferred by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel further contended that it is well settled that when the first appellate court reverses the findings of the trial court, it must record the findings in clear terms explaining how the reasoning of the trial court are erroneous. 11. While specifically inviting attention of this court to issues No.1 and 2, having been framed by the learned trial court, Mr. 11. While specifically inviting attention of this court to issues No.1 and 2, having been framed by the learned trial court, Mr. Sharma, contended that when plaintiffs were not held to be owners in possession of the suit land and defendants were also not held to be in use and occupation of the property as licencee by learned trial court, it was incumbent upon the first appellate court to deal with these issues specifically assigning specific reasons for not concurring with the findings returned by the court below qua these issues. While referring to the findings returned by the court below qua issues, as referred above, learned counsel contended that it was incumbent upon the first appellate Court to consider the provisions of Sections 11 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, which was taken into consideration by the trial court while holding the plaintiffs not to be owners in possession of the suit land. Learned counsel further contended that once issue with regard to defendants having become owners by way of adverse possession was decided against the appellants/defendants and thereafter no appeal was preferred against that findings by the appellants/defendants, there was no occasion for the first appellate Court to pass its judgment merely on the issue of adverse possession. While referring to the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, Mr. Sharma, contended that there is no discussion, if any, with regard to specific issues having been framed by the learned trial court and entire judgment is based upon the pleas of adverse possession having been taken by the defendants in the written statement. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Sharma, contended that since the first appellate court has failed to assign specific reasons while differing with the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court, present matter deserve to be remanded back to first appellate court for rendering its findings on all the issues framed by the learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings/evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Bhag Singh versus Smt. Piar Dassi and others 2017 (2) Him.L.R.902. 12. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Bhag Singh versus Smt. Piar Dassi and others 2017 (2) Him.L.R.902. 12. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate, supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate court and stated that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate court and as such, same deserve to be upheld. While refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, Mr. Verma, made this court to travel through the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court to demonstrate that each and every aspect of the matter has been carefully dealt with by the learned first appellate court while disagreeing with the findings returned by the learned trial court below. Mr. Verma, while inviting attention of this court to written statement having been filed by the appellants/defendants, contended that there was no occasion for the court below to render specific findings qua issues No.1 and 2 framed by the learned trial court in view of the candid admission having been made by the appellants/defendants with regard to ownership of plaintiffs over the suit land. 13. Mr. Verma, while inviting attention of this Court to the pleadings, contended that defendants have categorically admitted the plaintiffs to be owners in possession of the suit land by raising plea of adverse possession. He further contended that it has also come in the written statement that shop/Godown in question was leased out to them by original owner Smt. Vidyawati and similarly there is plea of oral sale having been effected in their favour, which was not proved in accordance with law. While inviting attention of this Court to the revenue entries, Mr. Verma contended that presumption of correctness is attached to the revenue entries, but at no point of time challenge, if any, was ever laid by the defendants to such revenue entries, where plaintiffs were shown to be owners in possession of the suit property. 14. While placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Babu Ram alias Durga Prasad versus Indra Pal Singh (dead) by L.Rs., AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3021 & 3027, Mr. 14. While placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Babu Ram alias Durga Prasad versus Indra Pal Singh (dead) by L.Rs., AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3021 & 3027, Mr. Verma, contended that appellants cannot be allowed to make/raise new plea in the Regular Second Appeal, especially when same was not raised/made before the court below. Mr. Verma, further contended that findings of possession is a finding of fact and cannot be upset in RSA even if other view is possible. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Satya Gupta(SMT) Alias Madhu Gupta versus Brijesh Kumar, (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 423, Chitru Devi versus Smt. Ram Dei and others, AIR 2002 Himachal Pradesh 59 and Ram Narain versus Murat and others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2417. While inviting attention of this Court to the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the instant appeal, Mr. Verma, contended that questions of law framed in the instant appeal cannot be stated to be substantial questions of law, in any manner. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams versus K.M. Krishnaiah, (1998)3 Supreme Court Cases 331 and the judgment passed by this Court in Harish Kumar & others versus State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2001(HP) 192. Mr. Verma, further contended that there is no perversity in the findings of learned first appellate court and as such, there is no scope of interference of this court in the instant proceedings. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh versus National Insurance Company Limited and another (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 524 and Puran Ram versus Bhagu Ram and another, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 102. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 16. Taking note of the submissions having been made by learned counsel for the parties viz-a-viz impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate court, this court intends to take substantial question No.3 at first instance. 17. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 16. Taking note of the submissions having been made by learned counsel for the parties viz-a-viz impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate court, this court intends to take substantial question No.3 at first instance. 17. It is well settled that first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and 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 in support of such findings. Though, the courts would be justified in taking a different view on questions of fact but that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by trial Judge in arriving at findings in question. But court of first appeal must cover all important questions involved in case and they should not be general and vague. When first appellate court reverses findings of the trial court, it must record the findings in clear terms explaining how the reasoning of the trial court is erroneous. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh vs. S.P. Srivastava, (2017)2 SCC 415 , wherein it has been specifically held that appellate Court is final Court of facts and as such its judgment must reflect application of mind and it must record its findings supported by reasons. Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, taking note of the earlier judgment passed in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001)3 SCC 179 , has held as under: “13. An appellate court is the final court of facts. The judgment of the appellate court must There fore 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. 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. 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 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. 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 there in 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 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.” 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. In the aforesaid judgment, as referred above, Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically concluded that learned first appellate court while concurring with the findings returned by the learned trial Court, is not expected to reiterate reasons given by the trial Court, rather mere expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the trial Court is sufficient. However, when learned first appellate reverses findings of learned trial Court, it must record the findings in clear terms explaining how the reasoning of the trial court is erroneous. This Court in Prem Singh versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation 2017(2) Him. However, when learned first appellate reverses findings of learned trial Court, it must record the findings in clear terms explaining how the reasoning of the trial court is erroneous. This Court in Prem Singh versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation 2017(2) Him. L.R.942 placing reliance of aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that first appellate court being last fact finding court is required to consider all the issues and decide the same by assigning reasons. 19. After having carefully perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court viz-a-viz evidence adduced on record, especially judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, this court sees substantial force in the argument having been made by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, that learned first appellate court has failed to appreciate the pleadings as well as evidence available on record in its right perspective. Similarly, this court finds from the judgment passed by the learned trial court, which has been further set-aside by the learned first appellate court that specific issue with regard to ownership and possession of plaintiffs over the suit land was framed, learned trial court while deciding aforesaid issue against the plaintiffs specifically concluded that it is not clear that how the plaintiffs have become owners after the death of Smt. Vidyawati. Learned trial Court further held that since Vidyawati died issueless and as such, property would have developed upon her heirs and husband in terms of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Learned trial court below further concluded that even if the plaintiffs are treated to be the heirs of husband, their father Jain Dass is alive and has appeared as PW-4 during the suit. Sh. Jain Dass would be class-II hair and brother has been mentioned in entry –III, while the brother’s son has been mentioned at entry-IV. Section 11 of the Hindu Succession Act, provides that the property intestate shall be divided between the heris specified in any one entry in class-II of the schedule so that they share equally. Learned trial Court taking note of the fact that only in absence of brother, brother’s son will succeed to the property held that the plaintiffs will not succeed to the property assuming that Smt. Vidyawati died intestate. Learned trial Court taking note of the fact that only in absence of brother, brother’s son will succeed to the property held that the plaintiffs will not succeed to the property assuming that Smt. Vidyawati died intestate. Learned trial Court taking note of the fact that no evidence was adduced on record by the plaintiffs to prove their title be it in the shape of evidence of any testamentary succession or “Will” specifically held that plaintiffs cannot claim title either on the basis of intestate succession or testamentary succession. 20. Similarly, it emerged from the judgment passed by the learned trial court that specific issue was framed “whether the defendants are in use and occupation of the property as licencee?” and learned trial court held defendants not to be occupation of the property as licencee. Interestingly, learned first appellate Court while setting aside the judgment passed by the learned trial court has not touched the aforesaid aspects of the matter and based its findings merely on the plea of adverse possession having been taken by the appellants/defendants in the written statement. Since, trial court had specifically made reference to Section 11 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, while exploring answer to issues No.1 and 2, learned first appellate Court ought to have examined the matter from that angle and should have returned its findings on these issues. 21. Bare perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, nowhere suggests that there is discussion, if any, qua aforesaid issues having been specifically framed by the trial court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. Rather, learned first appellate court proceeded to decide the appeal in favour of the plaintiffs on the premise that since plea of adverse possession having been taken by the defendants was decided against them, defendants acknowledged the plaintiffs to be the true owners and as such, they are entitled to decree of injunction. If for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the decree of injunction could be passed against the appellants/defendants on the basis of their so called admission with regard to title of plaintiffs, decree of possession qua the suit property could not be passed by court below without adjudicating issue of title, which was under serious dispute and specific issue qua the same was framed by the court below. Other wise also, if the matter is viewed from other angle, once the trial court had specifically held respondents/plaintiffs not to be owners in possession of the suit land taking note of Sections 11 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, was it not incumbent upon the trial court to specifically deal with that issue and return its findings on the same?. 22. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and 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 in support of such findings. True, it is that learned first appellate court is entitled to give all together different view on question of facts after adverting to the reasons given by the trial Judge in arriving at the findings in question, but same time it is also required to cover all important questions involved in the case after having gone through the pleadings as well as evidence in detail. Most importantly, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh’s case supra whenever first appellate court reverses findings of trial Court, it is expected to record findings in clear terms specifically stating therein, in what manner, reasoning given by the trial court is erroneous. 23. In the instant case, this court after having carefully perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, sees no reasons to agree with the contention having been made by Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate that first appellate Court has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very carefully. 24. In the instant case, learned first appellate Court while reversing the findings of learned trial court, has come to the conclusion that since defendants have not been able to substantiate that the suit property was purchased by them by way of oral sale, they cannot be said to have acquired title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. In the instant case, learned first appellate Court while reversing the findings of learned trial court, has come to the conclusion that since defendants have not been able to substantiate that the suit property was purchased by them by way of oral sale, they cannot be said to have acquired title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. Since, issue with regard to adverse possession was decided against the appellants/defendants, there was no occasion at all for the learned first appellate Court to return its findings on the same, especially when no challenge was laid by the appellants/defendants qua this findings returned by the learned trial court. Once, it had been specifically held by the learned trial Court that plaintiffs cannot claim ownership and possession of the suit land in view of the provisions contained in Section 11 and 154 of the Hindu Succession Act, it was not open for the first appellate Court that too without going into correctness of the aforesaid findings returned by the trial court, to hold respondents/plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit property in the light of findings returned by the learned trial Court qua the plea of adverse possession having been taken by the appellants/defendants in their written statement. 25. This Court after having carefully perused the impugned judgment as well as record is fully convinced and satisfied that learned first appellate court has not covered all the questions/issues involved in the case and no reasons, whatsoever, have been assigned for differing with the judgment/findings returned by the learned trial court, while accepting the appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs. Since, this court taking note of the illegalities and irregularities committed by the learned first appellate Court, as discussed above, intends to remand the case back to the learned first appellate Court, it may not be proper for this Court at this stage to make any observation with regard to correctness of other findings returned by the courts below while dealing with the suit and appeal having been filed by the respective parties. Since this Court purposes to remand the case back, there is no occasion for this court to answer/return its findings qua other substantial questions of law and as such, they are left open at this stage. 26. Since this Court purposes to remand the case back, there is no occasion for this court to answer/return its findings qua other substantial questions of law and as such, they are left open at this stage. 26. Similarly, in view of above, this court sees no necessity to take note of the judgments cited by the learned counsel representing appellants/defendants at this stage. 27. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made here in above, impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court is quashed and set-aside and matter is remanded back to the learned first appellate Court with the direction to decide the matter afresh taking note of the observations made in the instant judgment as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh’s case, as has been taken note above. Needless to say, court below while deciding the matter afresh, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Since, the matter is hanging fire since 1998 i.e. for the last 19 years, this court hope and trust that needful shall be done by the court below expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of passing of this judgment to dispose of the instant appeal. 28. Parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned court below on 1st August, 2017. Copy of this order/judgment may be sent directly to the concerned court with complete records forthwith to enable it to do the needful within stipulated time. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.