JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard and disposed of ex-parte against the respondents. 3. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. (I), Garhwa in Title Appeal No. 09 of 2006 whereby and where under the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. (I), Garhwa in the judgment of concurrence, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge II, Garhwa in Title Suit No. 33 of 1986 dated 02.03.2006. 4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that Bakhori Jolaha was recorded as occupancy raiyat of the suit land during the settlement operation in the year 1917-18. Bakhori Jolaha had two sons and one daughter and the plaintiff and the proforma defendant No. 21 are the descendants of Bakhori Jolaha. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that on the death of Bakhori Jolaha, the suit land devolved upon them as per the shares under the Muslim Law. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that in the year 1974-75, the State of Bihar acquired 8 decimals of land of Plot No. 639 of the plaintiffs vide Case No. 08 of 1974-75 and compensation has been paid to the plaintiffs by recognizing the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and there is no objection by the defendants against such payment of compensation to the plaintiffs and acquisition of land by the Government. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 filed a petition before the Circle Officer, Garhwa vide Case No. 16 of 84-85 for opening of demand of the suit land in their favour but the same was rejected by the Circle Officer, Garhwa. A connected appeal was filed before the D.C.L.R. but the same was also rejected upon objection being made by one Raj Kishore Lal whose sons are the original defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The plaintiffs denied the surrender of land by them or their ancestors. A connected appeal was filed before the D.C.L.R. but the same was also rejected upon objection being made by one Raj Kishore Lal whose sons are the original defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The plaintiffs denied the surrender of land by them or their ancestors. The plaintiffs filed the suit with the following reliefs: (A) That the plaintiffs together are the occupancy raiyats of the suit land having 3/5th share therein and that the defendants 1 to 10 have no right, title and interest therein. Further any transaction by late Raj Kishore Lal in favour of defendants 6 to 20 is void having no legal consequence and not binding upon the plaintiffs. (B) The plaintiffs’ possession in respect of the suit land be confirmed. In alternate if it is necessary for the plaintiffs to get recovery of possession in respect of the suit land, the Court be pleased to grant them the relief of obtaining delivery of possession through process of the Court. 5. The defendant Nos. 2 to 5 challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and pleaded that the rent for the lands of Khata No. 112 fell in arrears of rent for the years 1936 to 1940 and the ancestors of the plaintiff being not in a position either to cultivate the land themselves or to clear off the arrears of rent to the landlord, orally surrendered the same to Akhauri Jagdeo Sahay the head and karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his brothers and as a token of surrender handed over the original parcha (record of rights) which was issued to their father during survey and settlement operation. Subsequently, they executed a Yadastnama of the said surrender on 03.06.1940. The defendants further pleaded that since the surrender neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant Nos. 21 and 22 or anybody in the line of the two sons of the recorded tenants ever came in possession of any part of the lands of Khata No. 112 in question. The defendants further pleaded that only 0.23 acres of plot No. 639 was acquired in the year 1974-75 and not 0.08 acres as claimed by the plaintiffs vide Case No. 8/74-75 and the compensation of the entire 0.23 acres of land was given to the defendant Nos. The defendants further pleaded that only 0.23 acres of plot No. 639 was acquired in the year 1974-75 and not 0.08 acres as claimed by the plaintiffs vide Case No. 8/74-75 and the compensation of the entire 0.23 acres of land was given to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and late Raj Kishore Lal who is the father of the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 which was received by defendant No. 2 on their behalf. After the above acquisition of land by the Government for construction of Distributary Canal under the Baghi Medium Scheme Projects in the year 1974-75 vide Land Acquisition Case No. 08/74-75, the Hindu Undivided Family of Akhauri Birkishore Lal and Akhauri Raj Kishore Lal were left with 2.39 acres in plot No. 639 appertaining to Khata No. 112. 6. In their joint written statement, the defendant No. 6 to 20 and 22 challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and they also corroborated the averments made in the written statements of defendant Nos. 2 to 5. They further pleaded that the defendant Nos. 13, 14 and 20 are in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession of their purchased land since the date of their purchase. 7. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following seven issues: (i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the ancestors of defendant no. 1 to 5 were the landlords of raiyats of khata no. 112 of village Sangrahe Khurd? (iv) Whether the land of khata no. 112 was surrendered by Gulaman and Akbar Ali in favour of the landlord Jagdeo Sahay? (v) Whether the sale deed executed by Rajkishore Lal in favour of defendants no. 6 to 20 are showy? (vi) Whether the court fee paid is insufficient? (vii) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiffs entitled to? 8. The learned trial court considered the materials available in the record and the evidence put forth by the parties i.e. eight witnesses examined by the plaintiffs and also the documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 8 as well as seventeen witnesses examined by the defendants and the documents which have been marked Ext.A to N. 9. The learned trial court first took up issue Nos. The learned trial court first took up issue Nos. (iii), (iv) and (v) together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the ancestors of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were the landlords of raiyat of Khata No. 112 of village Sangrahe Khurd which was even admitted by the plaintiff No. 2 himself in paragraph-5 of his deposition. The trial court then concluded that land of Khata No. 112 was surrendered by Gulaman Sheikh and Akbar Ali in favour of the landlord Jagdeo Sahay which the plaintiff admitted in para-10 of his deposition. The trial court also took note of the fact that prior to the amendment of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the year 1947 prior permission was not necessary for surrender under Section 72 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The trial court then held that the surrender of land does not amount to transfer, hence, Section 47 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is not applicable to the suit and the parties to the suit were not the member of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. The trial court also concluded that the sale-deed executed by Rajkishore Lal in favour of the defendants Nos. 6 to 20 are not showy as all the transaction were made through registered deeds and the purchasers got their names mutated and decided the issue Nos. (iii), (iv) and (v) against the plaintiffs. 10. The trial court disposed of the issue No. (vi) as not pressed. 11. In respect of the issue No. (i), the trial court held that the suit as framed, is not maintainable. 12. In respect of issue No. (ii), the trial court held that the plaintiffs have not got any valid cause of action for the suit. 13. In respect of issue No. (vii), the trial court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief and dismissed the suit on contest but without any cost. 14. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 09 of 2006 in the court of District Judge, Garhwa which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned First Appellate Court. 15. 14. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 09 of 2006 in the court of District Judge, Garhwa which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned First Appellate Court. 15. The learned First Appellate Court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and first took up issue No. (iii) and decided this issue in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs/appellants. The learned First Appellate Court thereafter took up issue No. (iv) and considered the following facts: (a) The admission of the descendants of Gulaman Sheikh that the suit land was surrendered in favour of the Jamindar as per Ext.D/1, the affidavit of Ali Hasan Sheikh son of Gulaman Sheikh and the statement in written statement. (b) Admission of plaintiff No. 2 as PW-8 that Gulaman has surrendered his land and except the land of Sangrahe all other lands were partitioned between the parties goes to show that the suit land was surrendered by Gulaman and Akbar. The admission of the PW-8 that the suit land was surrendered in favour of Jamindar Jagdeo Lal and Bir Kishore Lal. (c) The admission of the plaintiff that they never paid any rent after vesting of Jamindari interest nor demand was ever opened in their names. (d) Three rent receipts filed on behalf of the plaintiffs have not been duly proved and the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs to prove the same has failed to prove them. (e) Ext.D the Yadastnama shows that the sons of recorded raiyat have surrendered the suit land in the year 1940. (f) The assessment of equitable rent under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the B.L.R. Act in favour of the ancestors of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 as per Ext.I, the ‘M’ roll and Ext.N, C/C of Register II. (g) The original Parcha filed by the defendants which also find mentioned in Ext.D shows that Gulaman Sheikh and Akbar Ali handed over the original parcha to the Jamindar. (h) Sale-deeds executed by the father of the defendants being Ext.C to C/4 in the year 1960 to 1966 and on that basis the purchasers came in possession of the portion of the suit land and got their names mutated and paying rent to the State Government. (i) The admission by the plaintiffs that the ancestors of defendant Nos. (h) Sale-deeds executed by the father of the defendants being Ext.C to C/4 in the year 1960 to 1966 and on that basis the purchasers came in possession of the portion of the suit land and got their names mutated and paying rent to the State Government. (i) The admission by the plaintiffs that the ancestors of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were the Jamindars of the suit land. (j) The witnesses of the defendants establish that the suit land was surrendered in favour Jamindar. After considering the evidence in the record, the learned First Appellate Court found that the defendants/respondents have succeeded in proving the fact that the sons of recorded raiyat Bakhori Jolaha namely Gulaman Sheikh and Akbar Ali surrendered the suit land in favour of the landlord Jagdeo Sahay. 16. The learned First Appellate Court then took up issue No. (v) and came to the conclusion that the sale-deeds executed by Raj Kishore Lal in favour of defendant Nos. 6 to 20 are not showy since Raj Kishore Lal has good title in the lands involved in the sale-deeds. 17. The learned First Appellate Court disposed of the issue No. (vi) as not pressed. 18. The learned First Appellate Court took up issue Nos. (i) and (ii) together and came to the conclusion that the suit as framed is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have got no valid cause of action. 19. Lastly, the learned First Appellate Court took up issue No. (vii) and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court. 20. Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha-learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in their proper perspective and the trial court failed to frame the points for determination for deciding the appeal as necessitated under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Ambastha next submits that the learned trial court erred in not considering and giving due weightage to the Yadastnama (memorandum) dated 30.06.1940 and the Ext.A Badlainama dated 19.09.1940. Mr. Ambastha further submits that both the courts below failed to consider that the daughter of recorded tenant Bakhori Zolha namely Bokhani Bibi did not participate in the survey and Yadast. Mr. Ambastha next submits that the learned trial court erred in not considering and giving due weightage to the Yadastnama (memorandum) dated 30.06.1940 and the Ext.A Badlainama dated 19.09.1940. Mr. Ambastha further submits that both the courts below failed to consider that the daughter of recorded tenant Bakhori Zolha namely Bokhani Bibi did not participate in the survey and Yadast. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court be set aside by formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 21. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the materials in the record it is pertinent to mention here that requirement under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the appellate court should state points for determination before decision thereon is directory in nature. Merely for not specifically mentioning the word ‘point for determination’ the judgment and decree of the first appellate court does not get vitiated. In this case instead of using the word ‘point for determination’, the learned First Appellate Court has considered the points under the nomenclature ‘issues’ and discussed all the relevant materials and evidence in detail in a judgment consisting of thirty eight pages. It is a settled principle of law that the judgment of the appellate court must rehear the appeal on questions of law as well as fact and the judgment must reflect conscious application of mind and must record the court's findings, supported by reasons for its decision in respect of all the issues, along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manjula and Others vs. Shyamsundar and Others, (2022) 3 SCC 90 , paragraph no. 8 of which reads as under: “8. Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “CPC”) provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC provides the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. This rule mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) 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. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC provides the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. This rule mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) 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. Thus, the appellate court has the jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. The appellate court's jurisdiction involves a rehearing of appeal on questions of law as well as fact. The first appeal is a valuable right, and, at that stage, all questions of fact and law decided by the trial court are open for reconsideration. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect conscious application of mind and must record the court's findings, supported by reasons for its decision in respect of all the issues, along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties. Needless to say, the first appellate court is required to comply with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and non-observance of these requirements lead to infirmity in the judgment.” (Emphasis supplied) After going through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the reference of which has already been made in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment and decree shows conscious application of mind of the first appellate court to the arguments advanced by the rival parties before it during the hearing of the appeal both on facts as well as law. The first appellate court has recorded its findings on the suit supported by reasons for its decision. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the impugned judgment and decree is to be set aside merely because the learned First Appellate Court did not use the word ‘points for determination’ in the impugned judgment. 22. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the impugned judgment and decree is to be set aside merely because the learned First Appellate Court did not use the word ‘points for determination’ in the impugned judgment. 22. After going through the evidence in the record, this Court finds that both the courts below have dealt with the evidence in the record at length and on proper appreciation of the evidence have arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for in the suit and dismissed the suit and the appeal respectively. It is a settled principle of law that if a finding of fact is arrived at by the first appellate court in a case of concurrent finding of facts, ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding is so outrageously defies logic so as to suffer from the vice of irrationality, incurring the blame of being perverse, then the concurrent finding of fact can be reversed by the second appellate court in exercise of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharatha Matha and Another vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan and Others, (2010) 11 SCC 483 which was also relied upon in the case of K.N. Nagarajappa and Others vs. H. Narasimha Reddy, 2021 SCC Online SC 694. 23. After going through the materials in the record this Court do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal nor is there any relevant evidence which has not been considered by the learned courts below nor any of the findings of the courts below is based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence which suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity nor the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 24. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed. 25. Let a copy of this judgment be sent back to the learned courts concerned forthwith.