JUDGMENT : SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2001 passed by 17th Additional District Judge, Kanpur in Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1998 Gaffar vs. Kanpur Development Authority and Another. By the impugned judgment the first appellate court has allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree of trial court in O.S. No. 1552 of 1989 Gaffar vs. Kanpur Development Authority and has decreed the original suit and restrained the respondents (defendants) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant-plaintiff on the disputed property. 2. The brief facts are that respondent filed Original Suit No. 1552 of 1989 Gaffar vs. Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority and Another for permanent injunction. In the plaint it was alleged that plaintiff is absolute owner and landlord of field no. 797 ad-measuring 6 bigha 13 biswa situated in village Chandari, Kanpur Nagar, in pursuance of a will deed duly registered and the name of the plaintiff has been duly mutated in the revenue records of Khatauni for 1391 Fasli to 1396 Fasli as per order of Tehsildar dated 14.9.1987. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession upon the said land and has got his Pakka house therein which is in-existence for last more than forty years besides well, tomb and garden. The defendant no. 2 being a Cooperative Housing Society is not at all the owner and landlord of the disputed land. The defendant no. 2 by executing a fictitious sale deed is now approaching the field owned and possessed by the plaintiff to deliver the possession of the land of the plaintiff forcibly and illegally and for that purpose defendant no. 2 is making survey of the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Defendant no. 1 through his employees is also making survey. The defendants have no right, title or interest upon the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff and plaintiff is in lawful possession since long back and prior to that the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff were in peaceful possession without interruption. The defendant no. 1 filed written statements in which it denied the plaint allegations and further pleaded that Arazi No. 797 ad-measuring 17 bigha and 9 biswa situated in Chandari area was acquired vide award no. 38 of 25-3-1963 and possession of the acquired land was obtained on 20.8.1963. The defendant no. 1 filed written statements in which it denied the plaint allegations and further pleaded that Arazi No. 797 ad-measuring 17 bigha and 9 biswa situated in Chandari area was acquired vide award no. 38 of 25-3-1963 and possession of the acquired land was obtained on 20.8.1963. The defendant has a plan/scheme over the disputed land for Basic Primary School. The plaintiff has trespassed over the disputed land and constructed a Pakka house and a kitchen with boundary wall without any authority/permission, right, title or interest. The said construction is without any approved map and no duly sanctioned plan has been obtained by the plaintiff for construction from the map section. The construction erected on the plot can be demolished as unauthorized construction and is liable to be demolished under the Provisions of Nagar Mahapalika Act, 1959. The acquired land has already been developed and an impediment is caused due to unauthorized construction. The trial court framed following 8 issues: 1. Whether suit is under valued and court fees paid is insufficient? 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of Khasra No. 797 area 6 bigha 13 biswa village Chandari, Tehsil and District Kanpur and in possession and his forty years old construction are situated on it? 3. Whether defendant no. 2 has any right to transfer the disputed property? 4. Whether the disputed property has been validly acquired by the defendant no. 1? If yes, then how in which manner. 5. Whether any valid notice under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act has been issued under Land Acquisition Act? If yes, then its effect. 6. Whether Nagar Mahapalika has given any notice in relation to construction? If yes, then its effect. 7. Whether construction of plaintiff is illegal? 8. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any relief? After taking evidence the learned trial court decided issue nos. 2, 3 and 4 against the plaintiff and on that basis dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.1998. Aggrieved by it the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1989. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.1.2001 allowed the appeal, set-aside the judgment and decree of trial court and decreed the original suit of appellant-plaintiff and passed an injunction decree in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff upon disputed property. 3. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.1.2001 allowed the appeal, set-aside the judgment and decree of trial court and decreed the original suit of appellant-plaintiff and passed an injunction decree in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff upon disputed property. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary argument that the judgment of appellate court is not consistent with the Provision of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. No point for determination has been framed, hence, judgment is not valid judgment under the Provision of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. Learned counsel on the aforesaid point cited Bhagirath vs. Ram Chandra and Others, Second Appeal No. 43 of 1996 decided on 11.4.2019, and prayed that on the aforesaid ground the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court be set-aside and the matter be remanded back to the first appellate court for a fresh decision. In Para 3 of the aforesaid judgment this Court has observed that: “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 C.P.C. 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. (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.” In the aforesaid judgment itself in Para no. 32 this Court has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of H. Siddiqui vs. A. Ramalingam, 2011 (4) SCC 240 and has quoted Para 21 of the aforesaid judgment which is as follows: “The said provisions provide guidelines for the appellate Court as to how the Court has to proceed and decide the case. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. Thus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate Court that the Court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the material on record. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. Thus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate Court that the Court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the material on record. It would amount to substantial compliance of the said provisions if the appellate Court’s judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspect of the matter and the findings of the appellate Court are well founded and quite convincing. It is mandatory for the appellate Court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points.” From the perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court it is clear that the appellate Court has appreciated and discussed all the evidence on record and has considered the relevant points which arose for adjudication. Although, no specific point has been framed by the appellate Court but there is substantial compliance of the Provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. and there is no necessity or sufficient ground to remand the matter. 4. Following are substantial questions of law for disposal of this second appeal: (i) Whether the first appellate court misinterpreted and misconstrued the evidence led by the parties and has relied on any inadmissible evidence and has ignored any admissible evidence? (ii) Whether the findings recorded by the first appellate court are perverse and based on conjuncture and surmises? 5. Learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that respondent/plaintiff has filed the original suit on the basis of will deed but the said document in original was never produced and duly proved before the trial court. The trial court has given the finding in this respect against the plaintiff but the first appellate court without any good reason has set-aside the aforesaid finding. Learned counsel also contended that there is no documentary evidence on record about the title of the plaintiff. The title of plaintiff was not proved with any cogent evidence but the learned appellate court has given the finding that plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed property. The finding of the appellate court is perverse and illegal. 6. Learned counsel also contended that there is no documentary evidence on record about the title of the plaintiff. The title of plaintiff was not proved with any cogent evidence but the learned appellate court has given the finding that plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed property. The finding of the appellate court is perverse and illegal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that will in favour of plaintiff is a registered document which was filed in other case. Plaintiff has filed its certified copy. Learned counsel also contended that plaintiff is recorded tenure holder of disputed Khasra No. 797 area 6 bigha 13 biswa and has filed Khatauni which is the document of title, so the title of the plaintiff is duly proved. 7. From the material on record it appears that disputed plot was an agricultural plot and recorded in the name of legal representative of its previous owner Suleman. On the basis of registered will plaintiff got his name mutated in the revenue records and plaintiff has filed the extract of the Khatauni in which the order of mutation is recorded in his favour. Plaintiff has also filed the copy of the order of Naib Tehsildar passed in mutation proceeding on the basis of which his name has been mutated in the revenue records. The validity of this document (Khatauni) has not been challenged at any stage by the defendants or any other person. So from the evidence on record it is clear that plaintiff is recorded tenure holder and his name is duly recorded in the revenue record (Khatauni) which is a document of title. It is also well settled that civil court can not decide the question of title regarding agricultural plot and that is sole jurisdiction of revenue courts. There was no necessity to file original will deed or got it proved before the trial court. The said proceeding has been duly conducted before the competent court of Naib Tehsildar and on its basis the name of plaintiff is entered in the revenue records. It appears that learned trial court has lost the aforesaid legal aspect and has observed that plaintiff has not filed the original will and has not got it proved before the trial court and on this basis has rejected his claim of ownership. The aforesaid finding of the trial court was illegal. It appears that learned trial court has lost the aforesaid legal aspect and has observed that plaintiff has not filed the original will and has not got it proved before the trial court and on this basis has rejected his claim of ownership. The aforesaid finding of the trial court was illegal. The learned appellate court has rightly held that plaintiff is owner of the disputed property as he is recorded tenure holder and there is no illegality or perversity in the aforesaid finding. The learned trial court has also held that plaintiff is not in possession of disputed property observing that he has not disclosed the duration of his construction on the disputed property. The learned trial court has also disbelieved the other evidence produced by the plaintiff regarding possession. This finding of the learned trial court is also bad in law. The defendant no. 1 in his written statement has admitted the constructions of the plaintiff. So from the admission of the defendant no. 1 the possession of the plaintiff on the disputed property stands proved and no other evidence at all was required. The finding in this regard recorded by the appellate court thus is according to material on record and proper and legal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that Kanpur Development Authority has acquired the disputed Khasra No. 797 in the year 1967. The defendant has filed the relevant document in this regard. The learned trial court on the basis of evidence produced by the defendants has given the finding that the disputed land was acquired by the Kanpur Development Authority in the year 1967, so plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the disputed property but the first appellate court has reversed the finding of the learned trial court without any sound reasoning. The finding recorded by the first appellate court in this regard is also perverse and illegal. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the document produced by the defendants it is proved that Kanpur Development Authority has acquired only 12 bigha 9 biswa area of Khasra No. 797 and remaining 6 bigha and 13 biswa area was not acquired. There is no evidence on record to show that appellant-defendant has acquired the entire area of Khasri No. 797. There is no evidence on record to show that appellant-defendant has acquired the entire area of Khasri No. 797. Learned counsel also contended that in possession certificate and other documents related to acquisition proceedings the area acquired of Khasra No. 797 is mentioned as 11 bigha and 9 biswa only. The plaintiff has also filed a certificate issued by the officer of appellant/defendant in which it is specifically mentioned that 6 bigha and 13 biswa area of Khasra No. 797 has not been acquired by Kanpur Development Authority. The finding recorded by the learned trial court in this regard was against the evidence on record and has rightly been reversed by the first appellate court. 10. The defendant no. 1 in his written statement has pleaded that Arazi No. 797 ad-measuring 17 bigha and 9 biswa situated in Chandari area was acquired vide award no. 38 of 25.3.1963. The possession of the acquired land was obtained on 20.8.1963. The aforesaid pleading of defendant no. 1 is not proved by the documents filed by the defendant no. 1 because in the possession certificate the acquired area of Khasra No. 797 Minjumla is recorded as 11 bigha and 9 biswa only. There is no evidence on record to prove that 17 bigha and 9 biswa area of Arazi No. 797 was acquired by the Kanpur Development Authority as pleaded in the written statement of defendant no. 1. Contrary to it there is Letter No. D/12/AA IPL/87 dated 27.7.1987 issued under the signature of Executive Engineer (Planning) Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur addressed to plaintiff Gaffar in which it is mentioned that “you are hereby informed that Arazi No. 797 village Chandari area 6 bigha and 13 biswa has not been acquired by the Kanpur Development Authority.” The learned trial court has misread the documentary evidence in this regard. The observation of the learned trial court that plaintiff himself has admitted the acquisition of land is also misconstrued because the plaintiff has stated that Kanpur Development Authority has acquired only 11 bigha and 9 biswa of Arazi No. 797. There is no admission of plaintiff that 17 bigha and 9 biswa area of Arazi No. 797 was acquired by Kanpur Development Authority or the disputed property was acquired by Kanpur Development Authority. The finding of learned trial court due to above reason was incorrect and illegal. There is no admission of plaintiff that 17 bigha and 9 biswa area of Arazi No. 797 was acquired by Kanpur Development Authority or the disputed property was acquired by Kanpur Development Authority. The finding of learned trial court due to above reason was incorrect and illegal. The learned appellate court has rightly appreciated the evidence on this point also and finding recorded by the learned appellate court that Kanpur Development Authority has acquired only 11 bigha and 9 biswa of Arazi No. 797 is just and proper. There is no illegality or perversity in the aforesaid finding of the learned first appellate court. 11. From the evidence on record it is proved that respondent-plaintiff is recorded tenure holder in possession of the disputed property. The appellant/defendant has failed to prove that disputed land was acquired by him. The appellant-defendant has further admitted the possession of the respondent-plaintiff on the disputed property. The learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was erroneous. The findings recorded by the learned appellate court on the aforesaid issues are according to evidence and just and proper. 12. The learned appellate court has neither misinterpreted nor misconstrued the evidence led by the parties and has also not relied on any inadmissible evidence and has not ignored any admissible evidence. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned appellate court. Hence, both the question of law framed are decided against the appellant. This second appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. 14. Parties shall bear their own cost.