ORDER : ORDER IN APPEAL: 1. Present appellant, who was the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 146 of 2007 before the trial Court and appellant in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2016 before the first appellant Court, has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla in Regular Civil Appeal No.1 of 2016 on 28.10.2016. 2. However, this appeal was fixed for hearing at the admission stage, considering the issue involved in the appeal as well as concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court of dismissing the suit as well as appeal preferred by the present appellant, on a request, learned advocate has produced the relevant documents relied upon by the courts below, this appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. Brief facts of the present case may be referred as under : Civil Suit was filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to remove the encroachment of the suit land, being survey no. 12 paiki 3 and get the possession of the suit property. As per the averments made by the plaintiff, he was an owner of the suit land admeasuring hectare 0-80-94 per aare of survey no. 12 paiki 3 situated in village Borutar Ta: Nandod, Dist: Narmada. That, the entire land was having survey no. 12 admeasuring of 15 acre 15 guntha. That, out of this land, 6 acre land was possessed by the father of the defendant no.2 late Shri Kashiram Ramdas Tadvi and on the basis of statement, entry no. 2 was entered in the revenue record on 18.05.1949. Thereafter, vide entry no. 30, the name of the defendant no.2 was entered in the revenue record. On filing of the suit by the plaintiff, land admeasuring hectare 2-42-85 per aare of survey no. 12 paiki 4, the land was transferred in favour of the defendant no.2. That, while deducting the land of acre 6 from the entire land of 15 acre 15 guntha, the remaining land admeasuring 7 acre 15 guntha was transferred to the father of the respondent no.1/1 to 1/3 deceased Ukkadbhai Chhabalabhai under the Tenancy Act and it was purchased through power of attorney of the plaintiff Shri Biharilal and necessary entry thereof was made vide entry no. 55 on 03.03.1961. After completing the installments, tenancy certificate was issued on 10.07.1970. 55 on 03.03.1961. After completing the installments, tenancy certificate was issued on 10.07.1970. That, defendants No. 1/1 to 1/3 are the legal heirs of the deceased Kashiram Ramdas Tadvi. That, in family arrangement, the land admeasuring 2 acre 18 guntha was come into share of the defendant no.1/1, land admeasuring 2 acre 18 guntha was come into share of the defendant no.1/2 and land admeasuring 2 acre 19 guntha was come into share of the defendant no. 1/3. That, total land admeasuring 7 acre 15 guntha was entered into the revenue record vide entry no. 237 on 08.07.2000. In the year 1998, the measurement of survey no. 12 paiki 3 was made through the District Surveyor and it was found that the measurement of the land of the plaintiff was hectare 0-36-48 per aare, while in the village form no. 7/12, it was entered as hectare 0-80-94 aare. That, adjoining land of survey no. 9 was measured on 30.06.2006 and it was found that the land admeasuring hectare 0-16-26 aare was encroached and therefore, the land encroached by the encroacher was removed by them and possession of the land admeasuring hectare 0-16-26 aare was handed over to the plaintiff. That however, the defendants have encroached the land admeasuring hectare 0-28-00 per aare on north-south and west under the ownership of the plaintiff. A request was made by the plaintiff to re-measure the land and thus, he applied before the Deputy Collector, Rajpipla, as the defendant was denying to sign for measurement of the land, and therefore, the plaintiff had constrained to file the suit with a prayer to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the encroached land admeasuring hectare 0-28-00 per aare made by the defendant and till the possession is handed over to the plaintiff, mesne profit be paid by the defendants with interest @ 18% p.a. and grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his servants, agents from making any disturbing with the possession of the plaintiff’s land ie., survey no. 12 paiki 3 or making any encroachment in the land admeasuring 0-80-24 aare till final disposal of the suit. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing their written statement vide Ex. 21. The averments made by the plaintiff in the suit were not admitted by the defendants except specifically admitted by them. As per their contentions, father of the defendants no. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing their written statement vide Ex. 21. The averments made by the plaintiff in the suit were not admitted by the defendants except specifically admitted by them. As per their contentions, father of the defendants no. 1/1 to 1/3 deceased Ukkadbhai Chhabalabhai had purchased the land admeasuring 9 acre 15 guntha under the Tenancy Act from the power of attorney of the plaintiff namely Shri Biharilal on installment basis. That, necessary entry was made on 03.03.1962. That, in the land revenue record, village form no. 7/12 and Khedut diary, measurement of the land was shown as 9 acre 15 guntha. That, since last 46 years, they were in possession of the suit land and were cultivating the same. That, the plaintiff has never made any clarification in the plaint about alleged land encroached by the defendants. That, the suit itself is not maintainable as the false revenue record was concocted by the plaintiff. Ultimately, it was requested by the defendants to dismiss the suit. 5. Learned trial Judge, after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, was pleased to dismiss the suit by his judgment and order dated 27.08.2014. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2016 before the court of learned Principal District Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla. Learned District Judge, after hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellant/original plaintiff vide order dated 28th October 2016. Hence, this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (In Short “CPC”) is filed by the present appellant. 6. Heard learned advocate for the appellant. 7. It was submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court are perverse and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. It was further submitted that provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC was not complied with by the first appellate Court framing the points for determination. That, first appellate Court has not discussed or evaluated the oral as well as documentary evidence independently. It was further submitted that it is mandatory to frame points of determination under Order 41 Rule 31(A) CPC but no independent findings were given by the first appellate Court. That, first appellate Court has not discussed or evaluated the oral as well as documentary evidence independently. It was further submitted that it is mandatory to frame points of determination under Order 41 Rule 31(A) CPC but no independent findings were given by the first appellate Court. That, evidence was never discussed by the first appellate Court. That, the findings of the trial Court were confirmed without any independent reasons by the first appellate Court. That, it was duty of the first appellate Court to give the entire findings of each issues/points while recording evidence of the trial court. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial court as well as first appellate Court. 8. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance in case of “ B. V. Nagesh v. H. V. Sreenivas Murthy, reported in 2010 (13) SCC 530 , H. Siddiqui (dead) by Lrs. V. A. Ramalingam, reported in 2011 (1) GLH 586 and 2018 (1) SCC 604 . 9. Following substantial questions of law are proposed to be framed by the learned advocate for the appellant. (A) Whether the present appeal lies as per the provisions of Section 100(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure? (B) Whether the learned first appellate Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment order and decree contrary to the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (C) Whether the learned first appellate Court has erred in passing impugned judgment, order and decree contrary to the provisions of Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908? (D) Whether the learned first appellate Court has erred in passing impugned judgment order and decree contrary to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (E) Whether the learned first appellate Court has erred in not framing points of determination as mandatory under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (F) Whether the learned first appellant Court has erred in not given the decision on the point determination as mandatory as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31(b) (c) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (F) Whether the learned first appellant Court has erred in not given the decision on the point determination as mandatory as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31(b) (c) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (G) Whether the first appellate Court has erred in dismissing the Regular Civil appeal No. 1 of 2016 without framing point of determination and without adjudicating the point of determination? (H) Whether the learned first appellate Court has erred in not discussing and not re appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and further erred in passing the impugned judgment, order and decree? (I) Whether the learned first appellate Court has erred in not believing and not appreciating Exhibit 79 and 80, map prepared by the surveyor of the government? (J) Whether the learned first appellate Court has erred in not believing and not reading in evidence Exhibit 117? (K) Whether the learned first appellate Court has erred in not considering and not reading exhibited documents as per the Evidence Act, 1872 and thereby further erred in passing impugned judgment order and decree? 10. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant, documentary evidence produced on record before this court, when the plaintiff has averred that the land of his share bearing survey no. 12, admeasuring hectare 0-28-00 per aare on north-south and west side was encroached by the defendants and illegal possession was lying with the defendants, thus it would be the duty of the plaintiff to bring his case by producing cogent evidence before the trial Court. From the evidence produced on record, it appears that there as no cogent evidence led by the plaintiff to prove the alleged encroachment of the suit land by the defendant. The plaintiff came to know about the alleged encroachment and left share of his land in the year 1998. Thereafter, the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2007. Vide Ex. 137, the khedut diary was produced by the defendants wherein the measurement of the land was shown as acre 9-15 guntha in favour of the Ukkadbhai Chhabalabhai, father of the defendants. No such farmer diary was produced by the plaintiff to show that the land was spared. In the entry no.42 as well as entry no. 55, in document ex. 135, there was clear discloser of the land admeasuring acre 9-15 guntha. No such farmer diary was produced by the plaintiff to show that the land was spared. In the entry no.42 as well as entry no. 55, in document ex. 135, there was clear discloser of the land admeasuring acre 9-15 guntha. Thereafter, at some points, there was some eraser of measurement of the land and tried to insert acre 7-15 guntha. The land admeasuring acre 9-15 gunth was transferred in the revenue record in favour of the deceased Ukabhai Chhablabhai since long. No record was produced by the plaintiff prior to 2004 in respect of the suit land. Vide evidence Ex. 134, the plaintiff has produced the revenue record of village form No. 7/12 from the year 1951 to 1861, wherein measurement of the land was shown as acre 9-15 gunthas. Name of Rameshchandra Shivlal, father of the plaintiff was deleted and name of the deceased Ukabhai Chhablabhai, father of the defendants was entered. It appears that revenue record was tampered by somewhere. The plaintiff was unable to prove that encroachment was made by the defendants in the suit land came into the share of the plaintiff. It appears that the issues framed by the trial Court vide Ex. 175 were re-framed by the first appellate court and answered after considering the evidence available with the trial court. 11. In case of B. V. Nagesh v. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy, reported in 2010 (13) SCC 530 , it was held that first appeal is valuable right of parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case therein is open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The apex Court has further observed that Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decree. 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) reasons for the decision, and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 12. It was further observed that 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 alongwith the contentions put-forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. 13. In another case in H. Siddiqui (dead) by Lrs. 12. It was further observed that 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 alongwith the contentions put-forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. 13. In another case in H. Siddiqui (dead) by Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam, reported in 2011 (1) GLH 586 SC, it was held that it is mandatory that the appellate Court of appreciating properly the fact and evidence and should apply its mind and then to decide the case. Being the final court of facts, the first appellate court should not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial court judgment inspite of it should give reasons for its decision on each point separately. 14. In case of C. Ventaka Swamy v. H. N. Shivanna, reported in 2018 (1) SCC 604 , it was held that right to file first appeal against decree under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right of litigant. Jurisdiction of first appellate Court while hearing first appeal is very wide like that of trial Court and it is open to appellant to attack all findings of fact and/or of law, in first appeal. 15. From the judgment of the first appellate Court, it appears that the issues framed by the trial Court were re-framed and answered by the first appellate Court after recording the evidence of the trial Court. From the judgment of first appellate Court, it cannot be said that findings of the trial Court were accepted as concurrent findings. The first appellate Court has also arrived at its independent conclusion referring the documents and record of the trial Court independently. Some of the findings arrived at by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court would not say that the first appellate Court has failed to perform his duty of re-appreciation of evidence. Here, it can not be said that the first appeal preferred by the present appellant was dismissed without any appreciation of evidence. The first appellate Court has dealt with various issues arising in the case and has discussed the arguments advanced by the parties in support of their case. 16. Here, it can not be said that the first appeal preferred by the present appellant was dismissed without any appreciation of evidence. The first appellate Court has dealt with various issues arising in the case and has discussed the arguments advanced by the parties in support of their case. 16. In case of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh v. S. P. Srivastava(d), reported in 2017 (2) SCC 415 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when the appellate Court agrees with the views of 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 findings of trial Court, it must record findings in clear terms explaining how reasonings of trial Court is erroneous. 17. Here, the first appellate Court has confirmed the findings of trial Court agreeing with the same, but it was also considered all the issues raised before the Court and determine the same, and thereafter, has come to the conclusion with reasons. The first appellate Court has applied its mind and thereafter, has recorded its findings supported by the reasons. 18. Recently, in case of Gurnam Singh (D) by Lrs & Ors. v. Lehna Singh (D) by Lrs, reported in AIR 2019 SC 1441 , the Apex Court has held in para 18 that : “18. Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in the case of Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 , despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law.” 19. The appellate Court has re-framed the issues as framed by the trial Court and thus, it cannot be said that first appellate Court has committed any error while passing the judgment and order contrary to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31(a) CPC. In factual findings or oral evidence as well as documentary evidence would not be questioned in Second Appeal or cannot be re-appreciated as urged by the appellant, and therefore, answer of substantial questions would be against the present appellant. 20. Present appeal stands dismissed and accordingly, stands disposed of. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION: 21. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, there shall be no order in this application. 22. Civil application stands disposed of accordingly.