JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Civil Appeal No.32-N/13 of 2004, dated 31.8.2005, vide which, the learned lower Appellate Court, has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) , Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Civil Suit No.202/1 of 2002, dated 21.9.2004. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ''plaintiff'') maintained a suit for declaration against the defendants/respondents (hereinafter referred to as ''defendants'') alleging that plaintiff''s Corporation sanctioned a loan of Rs. 55, 000/- on 6.9.1989/12.2.1990 to defendant No.1, sole proprietor of defendant No.2, for setting up a Woolen Carpet manufacturing Unit at Badripur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, out of which, it had availed a loan of Rs. 5,24, 000/-. For securing, the repayment of aforesaid loan and interest thereon, defendant No.1 through its sole proprietor Pardeep Singh, defendant No.2 executed security documents in favour of plaintiff on 30.3.1990 and also created equitable mortgage by depositing title deed on 30.3.1990. On failure of defendant No.1, to pay due installments in time, plaintiff''s took over the possession of Unit on 20.8.1992 and after giving due publicity it sold 10 biswa of land alongwith building and other assets on 22.12.1994 for a sum of Rs. 1,11, 000/- to Jeewan Singh, proprietor of M/s Paonta Paultry, who later on requested to execute the sale deed in favour of Pritam Kaur and Baljeet Kaur and possession of the sold assets was handed over to them on 18.7.1995. It is also averred that the sale deed was deposited by Pardeep Singh-defendant No.2, at the time of availing of loan for creating equitable mortgage regarding the land measuring 1-10 bigha, comprised in Khasra No.449/335/1 (old) and Khasra No.849/449 (new) , situated at Mohal Badripur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (hereinafter referred to as ''suit land'') . Plaintiff''s got created its mortgage lien on the aforesaid land measuring 1-10 bigha in the revenue records, vide mutation No.1958. Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Branch Office, for ascertaining the details of the properties owned and possessed by Pardeep Singh-defendant No.2, so that the same could be attached and sold for realization of the balance loan amount for which, plaintiff had already maintained suit. Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Branch Office, for ascertaining the details of the properties owned and possessed by Pardeep Singh-defendant No.2, so that the same could be attached and sold for realization of the balance loan amount for which, plaintiff had already maintained suit. Plaintiff procured the copy of jamabandi and sent the same to Head Office. It came to the notice that charge of the plaintiff had been deleted, vide mutation No.2555. Plaintiff sold the aforementioned land of 10 biswa to Baljeet Kaur and Pritam Kaur, however, despite the whole land measuring 1-10 bigha was transferred to Chuhi Ram and Chatter Singh, defendants No.3 and 4, by way of sale deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib, dated 16.3.1998 and thereafter, mutation No.2581, was also attested in their favour. Defendant No.2 dishonestly with malafide and fraudulent intention and in collusion with defendants No.3 and 4 alienated the suit land with the sole object of defrauding the creditor i.e. plaintiff. Defendants No.3 and 4 had no right, title or interest in the suit property. 3. Defendants No.1 and 2 did not contest the suit and were proceeded against ex-parte. Defendants No.3 and 4 filed their joint written statement by raising preliminary objections that the suit is barred by limitation, defendants are bonafide purchasers for value and plaintiff is estopped from filing and maintaining the suit and same is not maintainable. On merits, it has been denied that the suit property was mortgaged through equitable mortgage by defendant No.2, as there was no record of any mortgage recorded in the revenue record nor they could gather any knowledge of the same. There was no entry of any charge over the suit land, when they procured copies of jamabandies for purchasing the suit property. They purchased the property after making due enquires for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,50, 000/-, which they paid to the vendor and also spent Rs. 26, 540/- on the purchase of stamps and registration etc. Defendant No.2 did not disclose any such charge rather he disclosed that he had got the marketable title to the suit land and since there was nothing on record to suggest any such encumbrance, therefore, they being bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice are entitled to protect their title. 4. From the pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues : "1. 4. From the pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues : "1. Whether the plaintiff Corporation sanctioned a loan of Rs. 7,55, 000/- on 6.9.1989 in favour of defendant No.1 firm, if so, its effect ? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant No.1 pledged his property by executing equitable mortgage deed and agreement of hypothecation on 30.3.1990 in favour of plaintiff Corporation, if so its effect ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff Corporation sold 10 biswas of land alongwith building and other assets for Rs. 1,11, 000/- to Shri JeewanSingh, Prop. of M/s Paonta Poultry, as alleged, if so its effect ? OPP. 4. Whether Jiwan Singh later on requested to execute the sale deed in favour of Pritam Kaur and Baljeet Kaur, if so its effect ? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff Corporation is entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that sale deed registered at Sr.No.210 dated 16.3.1998 executed by Pardeep Singh defendant No.2 in favour of Sh. Chuhi Ram and Chatter Singh, defendants No.3 & 4, is illegal, null and void, as alleged ? OPP. 6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, as alleged? OPP. 7. Whether the defendants No.3 and 4 are bonafide purchasers for value as there was no encumbrances on the suit property and as such the sale is protected under law, as alleged ? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing and maintaining the suit, as alleged ? OPD. 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff for declaration is not maintainable, as alleged ? OPD. 10. Relief." 5. The learned trial Court after deciding Issue No.1 in affirmative, Issue No.2 to 5 in negative, Issues No.6 to 9 in affirmative, dismissed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved thereby the plaintiff maintained first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, assailing the findings of learned Trial Court below being against the law and without appreciating the evidence and pleading of the parties to its true perspective. The learned lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned Court below. Now, the appellant has maintained the present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted for hearing on 01.03.2006 on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as upheld by the learned first appellate Court are dehors the evidence on record?" 7. Now, the appellant has maintained the present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted for hearing on 01.03.2006 on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as upheld by the learned first appellate Court are dehors the evidence on record?" 7. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is against the law, in these circumstances, suit of the plaintiff may be decreed throughout by setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on respondents has strenuously argued that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal, even otherwise also, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, are as per law, after appreciating the evidence and facts, which have come on record to its true perspective and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 10. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 pledged his property by executing equitable mortgage deed and agreement of hypothecation on 30.3.1990 in favour of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has no placed on record the original or copy of equitable mortgage deed allegedly to be pledged of the property including the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.500/766, Khasra No.860/469, measuring 1-10 bighas, situated at Mahaul Badripur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. The alleged documents of agreement of hypothecation Ex.P2, has also not been proved on record. PW-2 B.S. Jamalta, has deposed that the agreement of hypothecation Ex.P2, was processed through him. Ex.P2, does not bear his signature nor he has stated anything that what were the terms and conditions incorporated in Ex.P2 and who was present in whose presence Ex.P2 was executed by defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff had sold 10 biswas of land alongwith building and other assets of defendant No.1 and 2, for Rs. 1,11, 000/- to Jiwan Singh, proprietor of Paonta Poultry. The learned lower Appellate Court has not given any finding with respect to equitable mortgage, as alleged by the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff had sold 10 biswas of land alongwith building and other assets of defendant No.1 and 2, for Rs. 1,11, 000/- to Jiwan Singh, proprietor of Paonta Poultry. The learned lower Appellate Court has not given any finding with respect to equitable mortgage, as alleged by the plaintiff. Further, the findings of the learned Court below with respect to the hypothecation deed are unreasoned and without any basis. The learned lower Appellate Court has not given any finding while considering the fact that how the mutation has been attested in violation of the terms and conditions of the plaintiff and what was the reason for attestation of the mutation and whether the mutation in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 was for consideration or not. These all facts goes to show that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, is without any reason and the learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence, which has come on record to its true perspective, so substantial question of law, as framed by this Court is answered holding that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is a complete misreading and misappreciation of evidence, which has come on record to its true perspective. This Court also finds that the learned lower Appellate Court is required to adjudicate the appeal being First Appellate Court of appeal and should have applied the law, after giving reasons on each and every aspect raised by the plaintiff, but the learned lower Appellate Court has failed to do so. In these circumstances, this Court finds fit and it will be appropriate to direct the learned lower Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh, after giving its reasons and after taking into consideration all the material, which has come on record to its true perspective and to give the detailed findings, on the facts of law including the hypothecation deed and the point involved with respect to the mutation, after considering all the pleadings of the plaintiff and give reasoned findings. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the case is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court to hear the parties and give reasoned findings on all the points involved in the present appeal. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the case is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court to hear the parties and give reasoned findings on all the points involved in the present appeal. Parties are directed to appear before the learned lower Appellate Court on 27th April, 2018. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application (s) , if any, shall also stands disposed of.