JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal is made by the original plaintiffs to the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court below (Extra Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha) dated 01.07.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2002. 2. The present appellants - original plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant – brother, being Regular Civil Suit No. 122 of 1998 in the trial Court. The trial Court (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Modasa) allowed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2002. The declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs was granted, which was challenged before the Appellate Court below by the defendant - brother. The Appellate Court below set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. This is challenged in this appeal by the plaintiff - brothers. 3. Mr. Jitendra Patel, learned advocate for the appellants – original plaintiffs has submitted that the appellants and the defendant are the real brothers. Three of them were plaintiffs and the eldest one was the sole defendant. It is submitted that the properties of the father were partitioned and in spite of that the defendant - brother was disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs in the properties of their share for which injunction was prayed for against the defendant brother. It is submitted that the trial Court had rightly accepted the claim of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that without framing any specific point for determination and without any valid reason, the Appellate Court below erroneously set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Attention of this Court is invited to the reasons and findings recorded by the Appellate Court below. It is submitted that substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration of this Court. Attention of this Court is also invited to the order of this Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Kapadia) dated 07.12.2004. It is submitted that those questions be answered in favour of the appellants. It is submitted that this appeal be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. I.M. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Appellate Court below has not committed any error and further that the trial Court was in error in answering the issues framed by it in favour of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that no interference be made by this Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. I.M. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Appellate Court below has not committed any error and further that the trial Court was in error in answering the issues framed by it in favour of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that substantial questions of law framed by this Court vide order dated 07.12.2004 be answered against the appellants. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under: 5.1 The dispute is between four brothers. Three brothers are on one side - they are plaintiffs. The eldest one is the sole defendant. 5.2 The plaintiffs prayed for declaration and permanent injunction over the suit properties. The properties were of their father. They were partitioned also. It was the case of the plaintiffs that, the defendant was disturbing the plaintiffs to enjoy the properties which had come to their share. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court had framed the following issues (translated from original Gujarati), and on the basis of the evidence on record, answered them as under. “1. Whether plaintiffs prove that the land bearing survey No. 385 and 386 of Village-Malpur was in the ownership of their father Patel Ramabhai Kalabhai ? (In affirmative) 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that on the North West side of survey No. 386, there is a well jointly owned by the parties ? (In affirmative) 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that there were partitions at different point of time of their joint family properties as mentioned in Para-4 to 8 of the plaint ? (In affirmative) 4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the properties partitioned between the parties are in their possession as mentioned in Para-5 of the plaint ? And are they running in the sole name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records ? (In affirmative) 5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is giving threat to snatch away the ownership and possession of the suit land and well from the plaintiffs ? (In affirmative) 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties ? (In negative) 7. (In affirmative) 5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is giving threat to snatch away the ownership and possession of the suit land and well from the plaintiffs ? (In affirmative) 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties ? (In negative) 7. Whether the defendant proves that the land bearing survey No. 385 and 386 is self acquired property of the defendant ? (In negative) 8. Whether the defendant proves that defendant has executed any writing for showing that the plaintiffs have any right or interest in the survey No. 385 and 386 ? (In negative) 9. Whether the defendant proves that he is in possession of the land bearing survey No. 385 and 386 in the knowledge of the others and whether he cultivates the land ? (In negative) 10. Whether the defendant proves that the suit property is not the joint family property and there was no partition between the parties at all as mentioned in the plaint ? (In negative) 11. Whether the defendant proves that the suit land is running in his name in the revenue records ? (In negative) 12. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiffs have wrongly made entry No. 2467 in the revenue record to take away the possession illegally from him ? (In negative) 13. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get relief as prayed in Para-13(A) to 13 (E) of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction ? (In affirmative) 14. What order and decree ? (As per final order)” 5.3 On the basis of the above findings, the trial Court allowed the suit and passed the decree accordingly. 5.4 The defendant - brother filed Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2002. The Appellate Court below has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 5.5 This Court has considered the reasons recorded by the Appellate Court below. It is noted that as against 13 specific issues framed by the trial Court, the Appellate Court had not framed any point for determination. This was in breach of the requirement of Order XVI Rule 31 of C.P.C. The only point for determination noted by the Appellate Court below was, whether the trial Court committed any error or not. This Court finds that this is how the Appellate Court had attempted to examine the answers given by the trial Court qua 13 issues. This was in breach of the requirement of Order XVI Rule 31 of C.P.C. The only point for determination noted by the Appellate Court below was, whether the trial Court committed any error or not. This Court finds that this is how the Appellate Court had attempted to examine the answers given by the trial Court qua 13 issues. Even if the procedural error committed by the Appellate Court below as noted above, is not considered to be fatal, this Court finds that the Appellate Court below has not recorded any legally sustainable reason to reverse the findings of the trial Court. It is noted that, this Court has considered the reasons recorded by the trial Court so also by the Appellate Court. This Court finds that, the trial Court had recorded its satisfaction qua each issue and had arrived at the findings, on the basis of the evidence on record, as to how each issue was required to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. The partition deeds were on record. There was signature of the defendant – brother on it. The revenue record also supports that claim of the plaintiffs and the finding was recorded that the suit property could not be termed to be self acquired property by the defendant. The Appellate Court below has cursorily referred that, the said findings could not have been recorded, since the revenue record was not so. Reference needs to be made to Para-9 of the judgment of the Appellate Court below. This would show that the Appellate Court below has considered the revenue record for arriving at the conclusion qua ownership. This Court finds that, as against specific findings recorded by the trial Court qua each issue, the revenue record alone could not have been considered as the deciding factor to decide the rights of the parties. 5.6 It is noted that this Court has considered the reasons recorded by both the Courts below. This Court finds that the judgment arrived at by the Appellate Court below is procedurally erroneous and unsustainable in substance. The reasons recorded by the Appellate Court below are self contradictory and suffer from the vice of misreading of evidence on record. The errors of the Appellate Court below therefore need to be corrected by this Court. 6. This Court finds that the judgment arrived at by the Appellate Court below is procedurally erroneous and unsustainable in substance. The reasons recorded by the Appellate Court below are self contradictory and suffer from the vice of misreading of evidence on record. The errors of the Appellate Court below therefore need to be corrected by this Court. 6. Keeping the above aspects in view and having considered the Record and Proceedings, more particularly the evidence on record, both the substantial questions of law need to be and are answered by holding that, in the present case, the Appellate Court below misinterpreted the partition deeds Exh. 144 dated 1.2.1987, Exh. 145 dated 5.2.1989 and Exh. 146 dated 16.11.1994 along with revenue record Exh. 155, Court Commissioner Panchnama Exh. 174, Map Exh. 184, another panchnama at Exh. 186. It was already legally established before the trial Court that the suit properties were already partitioned amongst four brothers and they were in separate occupation and possession of the said properties. There is no legally sustainable reason recorded by the Appellate Court below to disturb the said finding. Resultantly, the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court below needs to be quashed and set aside and that of the trial Court needs to be restored. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 7.1 This Second Appeal is allowed. 7.2 The judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court below (Extra Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha) dated 01.07.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2002 is quashed and set aside. 7.3 The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Modasa) dated 27.09.2002 in Regular Civil Suit No. 122 of 1998 is restored. 7.4 It is noted that the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court below was already stayed by this Court and has remained stayed during the pendency of this appeal. No further order needs to be passed in that regard. 7.5 Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court.