JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below concurrently, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal assailing therein the judgments and decrees so passed against them. 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession qua the land contained in Khewat Khatauni No. 207 min/380, new Khata Khatauni No. 132 min/346 min old, under Khasra No. 11 measuring 0-5-4 bigha situated in village Majhetal, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi on the ground that even though the same was recorded under the ownership and possession of defendant No.1 in the revenue record, but the entry with regard to the possession of the suit land in the name of defendant No.1 was wholly wrong, illegal, incorrect and contrary to the factual position on the spot. It was averred that the suit land was previously owned by one Jagdishwar Datt and was recorded under the possession of Khunthi as non-occupancy tenant, who then acquired the proprietary rights over the same under the provisions of H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act or the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and then gave the suit land for cultivation to the plaintiff, who was continuing in possession of the suit land since long. Khunthi after having acquired the proprietary rights of the suit land, effected a gift deed of the same in favour of defendant No.1 and though the said gift was without delivery of actual possession in favour of defendant No.1, the same was void, yet entries had been incorporated in the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue record showing him the owner in possession of the same and tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, but such attempt was foiled by the plaintiff and consequently defendant No.1 through his next friend and mother filed Civil Suit No.91 on 15.6.1968 against the plaintiff and his wife in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Mandi. After a protracted trial, defendant No.1 entered into a compromise with the plaintiff and after having obtained valid permission from the Court for effecting compromise on an application moved by the next friend of defendant No.1, she effected a compromise with the plaintiff on 28.1.1970 wherein the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was recognized and the next friend of defendant No.1 sold the ownership rights of defendant No.1 over the suit land to the plaintiff after receiving sale consideration of Rs. 1050/- in the presence of the Court and on the basis of this compromise effected between the parties, the suit of defendant No.1 was dismissed by learned Senior Sub Judge on 28.1.1970 as withdrawn. It is after dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff was enjoying the suit land as an owner. However, since the revenue entries were not changed, therefore, defendant No.3 instigated defendant No.2 to sell the suit land to him after obtaining permission from the Court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act by acting defunct guardian of defendant No.1, despite the fact that defendant No.1 had never been in the care and custody and residing with defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 through defendant No.1 filed an application to the learned District Judge on 4.9.1978 for obtaining permission for selling the suit land on behalf of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3. In this application, the plaintiff filed objection and clearly asserted that he was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and revenue entries to the contrary were wrong, incorrect, illegal and void, but without deciding the real point at issue, the learned District Judge treating the proceedings to be of summary nature, accorded permission to defendant No.2 on 31.8.1979 and on the basis of the aforesaid order, defendant No.2 sold the suit land to defendant No.3 through registered sale deed No. 607 dated 29.9.1979 for an alleged consideration of Rs. 4000/- which sale is illegal, void, inoperative and against the plaintiff in view of the fact that defendant No.1 was no more the owner nor was in possession of the suit land. It was further averred that even the order passed by learned District Judge was also wrong, illegal, void and not a valid one. 4000/- which sale is illegal, void, inoperative and against the plaintiff in view of the fact that defendant No.1 was no more the owner nor was in possession of the suit land. It was further averred that even the order passed by learned District Judge was also wrong, illegal, void and not a valid one. It was further averred that defendant No.3 under the garb of invalid and void sale of the suit land in his favour had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the possession and enjoyment of the suit land on 13.10.1979 and his possession was only that of a trespasser and should be restored back to the plaintiff, hence the suit. 3. Defendant No.1 Kala Devi contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, nonjoinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction, cause of action, estoppel and suit being time barred, were raised. On merits, it was averred that the suit land was initially in the physical possession of the minor and thereafter the sale of the same through Doda Ram guardian of the minor the possession had been delivered to defendant No.3, who had also constructed a house over the land in question prior to institution of the suit. It has been admitted that Khunthi had acquired the proprietary rights, however, the plea regarding the sale was denied and it was contended that mother of the minor defendant No.1 had now sold the suit land for Rs. 1050/- as alleged. It was further submitted that there were other cases pending investigation before the police and before the Court of law and she withdrew all the cases as she was a poor lady and it was difficult for her to face the plaintiff. However, the possession of the suit land was with the minor Hetu and he was never dispossessed from the suit land. As regards the compromise, it was averred that the alleged compromise was not effected with free will of the replying defendant and it was a result of fraud, coercion and undue influence on the part of the plaintiff. It was further averred that the alleged compromise was never exhibited before the Court and contents of the deed were wrong and the defendant signed the alleged compromise for the purpose of withdrawing the case and not for any other purpose as alleged by the plaintiff. It was further averred that the alleged compromise was never exhibited before the Court and contents of the deed were wrong and the defendant signed the alleged compromise for the purpose of withdrawing the case and not for any other purpose as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant justified the sale made by defendant No.2 Doda Ram on behalf of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and would contend that the same is valid. 4. Defendants No.2 and 3 contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability and supported the case of defendant No.1, besides that, defendant No.3 averred that he is a bonafide purchaser for value and consideration and without notice. 5. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement(s) wherein the allegations contained in the written statement(s) have been controverted and those of the plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed. 6. It would be noticed that the suit was initially decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.6.1985, however, the said judgment and decree was reversed by the learned first Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 8.8.1988, which led to filing of the appeal by the plaintiff being RSA No. 342 of 1988 before this Court and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 10.7.1996 and this Court set-aside the judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below and remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal afresh after framing the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the land in dispute and was dispossessed therefrom as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the gift by Khunthi in favour of the defendant No.1 is void as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the compromise in the earlier suit No.91 of 1968 was a result of fraud, coercion and mis-representation as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD 4. Whether Smt. Kala was not competent to act as next friend of the defendant No.1 in the earlier suit as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the defendant No.3 is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice? If so, its effect? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct as alleged? OPD 9. Relief. 7. Whether the defendant No.3 is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice? If so, its effect? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct as alleged? OPD 9. Relief. 7. This Court had directed both the parties to lead their evidence and on the basis of evaluation of such evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 22.1.1997. The plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree of learned trial Court by filing an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, who vide its judgment and decree dated 28.6.2003 dismissed the same. 8. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal before this Court, which was admitted on 23.09.2003 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the findings arrived at by the trial Court and the first appellate Court are perverse, against the provisions of law and dehors the evidence on record?" 9. It would be evident from the record that the plaintiffs had filed the appeal before the learned first Appellate Court only on the following grounds: "1. That the judgment and decree of the lower Court is against law and facts on the file, hence the same is liable to be set aside on the face of it. 2. That the lower court has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record which has resulted in passing the impugned judgment and decree otherwise there was no material for the dismissal of the case of the appellants. 3. That the lower Court has wrongly decided the issue No.1 and 2 against the appellants, whereas it has been fully proved on record that Sh. Khunthi has sold the suit land in favour of Sh. Brij Lal through an oral sale and has also delivered in possession of the same in his favour and further the fact of the sale deed as well as the delivery of possession is admitted in the compromise which has been entered upon in the subsequent suit No. 91 of 1968, so from this evidence it is very much clear that Sh. Brij Lal was the owner of the suit land and subsequent gift deed in favour of respondent No.1 by Sh. Brij Lal was the owner of the suit land and subsequent gift deed in favour of respondent No.1 by Sh. Khunthi was/is void, because Sh. Khunthi was having no title to gift the suit land nor the same was accompanied with delivery possession, but the lower court by holding otherwise has committed illegality, which has resulted in passing the impugned judgment and decree. 4. That the lower court has also wrongly held in judgment that Sh. Brij Lal by making the payment to Sh. Hetu has admitted the title of him over the suit land, but the lower court has failed to understand this fact that the same amount is/was given just to put an end to the litigation. 5. That the lower court has also wrongly decided the issue NO.5 in favour of respondent No.3, by holding that he is bonafide purchaser for consideration, on the other hand the respondent No.3 was well aware of the possession of the predecessor in interest of the appellants as well as his title because Sh. Brij Lal has filed the objections in the proceeding U/S 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act before the District Judge, Mandi, so he cannot be treated the bonafide purchaser at all, nor he is entitled for any benefit being bonafide purchaser nor he can be treated the bonafide purchased. 6. That the findings of the lower Court is also self contradictory, because at one hand the lower court has decided issue No.3 and 4 in favour of the appellants, but he has declined to give an benefit under the same issues to the appellants as such the finding of the lower court is liable to be set aside on this score. 7. That otherwise the finding of the lower court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and more submissions will be made at the time of arguments." 10. However, the learned first Appellate Court without adverting to any of the grounds as raised in the memorandum/grounds of appeal, carved out a new case and proceeded to decide the case on the basis of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which otherwise was never the pleaded case of the plaintiffs. 11. However, the learned first Appellate Court without adverting to any of the grounds as raised in the memorandum/grounds of appeal, carved out a new case and proceeded to decide the case on the basis of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which otherwise was never the pleaded case of the plaintiffs. 11. As regards the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, there was really no need or necessity for the learned first Appellate Court to have gone into this question for the simple reason that this plea was otherwise not available to the plaintiffs as it is more than settled that the plea of part performance can only be used as a shield and not a sword. (Refer: Ranchhoddas Chhaganlal vs. Devaji Supdu Dorik and others , (1977) AIR SC 1517, Biswabani Pvt. Ltd. vs. Santosh Kumar Dutta and others , (1980) AIR SC 226 and Patel Kantilal Parshottamdas (D) and others vs. Jitendrakumar Nanjibhai Mistry (D) through LRS and others , (2017) 4 Scale 619 ). Meaning thereby that it can only be available to protect possession and no suit on the basis of such plea is maintainable. 12. That apart, the learned first Appellate Court was required to remain within the confines of its jurisdiction being a final Court of facts and law. It is more than well settled by now that 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. Even while affirming the findings of the trial Court, the appellate Court need not restate the effect of the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court, decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice. However, expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate Court for shirking the duty cast on it. 13. However, expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate Court for shirking the duty cast on it. 13. As observed above, the first appellate Court continues to be a final court of facts and law and, therefore, there is an additional duty cast upon it by the present scheme under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the pure findings of fact remain immune from challenge before this Court in second appeal. Therefore, now the first appellate Court is also a final court of law in the sense that its decision on a question of law even if erroneous may not be vulnerable before this Court in second appeal because the jurisdiction of the High Court has now ceased to be available to correct the errors of law or the erroneous findings of the first appellate Court even on questions of law unless such question of law be a substantial one. 14. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, prima-facie I find that the learned first appellate Court has not discharged the duty cast on it while deciding the first appeal and, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by it is clearly not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same for the reasons stated above, are rather perverse. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this appeal and the same is allowed and the case is remanded back to the learned first Appellate Court to decide the same afresh strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and the grounds that have been raised by the plaintiffs/appellants in the memorandum of appeal. Since the suit was filed by the plaintiffs nearly four decades back on 26.10.1979, therefore, the learned first Appellate Court is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31.12.2018. 16. The parties through their counsel(s) to appear before the learned District Judge, Mandi on 05.09.2018, who may decide the appeal himself or assign the same in accordance with law to any of the Additional District Judge(s). 17. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.