JUDGMENT : (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) 1. Heard Mr. O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Suresh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Anupam Kulshreshtra for private respondent for considerable time. 2. Both the counsels have agreed to the extent that the judgement passed by the First Appellate Court was not in terms of Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, since points of determination were not framed, therefore, there was no decision on it. The second appeal filed by the contesting respondents was allowed and, as such, it was an order of reversal of 2 concurrent orders. 3. In the second appeal, questions of law were framed but the Board of Revenue failed to consider an important aspect that the First Appellate Court has not followed the contours of Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and, therefore, the proper order ought to be to remand the case to First Appellate Court. In this regard the court takes note of judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and Others Vs. S.P. Srivastava (Dead) Through Legal Representatives, (2017) 2 SCC 415 and K. Karuppuraj Vs. M. Ganeshan, (2021) 10 SCC 777 wherein it has been held:- 4. Relevant paragraphs of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh(Supra) are mentioned hereinafter:- "12. As per Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, the judgment of the first appellate court must explicitly set out the points for determination, record its reasons thereon and to give its reasonings based on evidence. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC reads as under: “31. Contents, date and signature of judgment.—The judgment of the appellate court shall be in writing and shall state— (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is propounded be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.” It is well settled that the first appellate court shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for decision. However, it is equally well settled that mere omission to frame point/points for determination does not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate court provided that the first appellate court records its reasons based on evidence adduced by both the parties. However, it is equally well settled that mere omission to frame point/points for determination does not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate court provided that the first appellate court records its reasons based on evidence adduced by both the parties. 13. An appellate court is the final court of facts. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect the court's application of mind and record its findings supported by reasons. The law relating to powers and duties of the first appellate court is well fortified by the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. Considering the nature and scope of duty of the first appellate court, in Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar [Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar, (2015) 1 SCC 391 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 521] , it was held as under : (SCC pp. 394-96, paras 12-15) “12. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 ] , this Court held as under : (SCC pp. 188-89, para 15) ‘15. … The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. 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 along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. … while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it.’ The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar v. Sangram [Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 ] , wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 13. 13. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith [H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC 243 ] , this Court stated as under : (SCC p. 244, para 3) ‘3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.’ 14. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa [Jagannath v. Arulappa, (2005) 12 SCC 303 ] , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court observed as follows : (SCC p. 303, para 2) ‘2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion.’ 15. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy [B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 808] , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words : (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-5) ‘3. 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 CPC 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; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. 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 along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 ] , SCC p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram [Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 ] , SCC p. 758, para 5.) 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.’” 5. Relevant paragraphs of K. Karuppuraj (Supra) are mentioned hereinafter:- "9. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.’” 5. Relevant paragraphs of K. Karuppuraj (Supra) are mentioned hereinafter:- "9. In Emmsons International Ltd. [SBI v. Emmsons International Ltd., (2011) 12 SCC 174 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 289] while considering the scope and ambit of exercise of powers under Section 96 CPC by the appellate court and after considering the decisions of this Court in Madhukar v. Sangram [Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 ] ; H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith [H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC 243 ] and Jagannath v. Arulappa [Jagannath v. Arulappa, (2005) 12 SCC 303 ] , it is held that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the appellate court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 10. In H. Siddiqui [H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 209] , it is observed and held in para 21 as under : (SCC p. 247) “21. 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. It would amount to substantial compliance with the said provisions if the appellate court's judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspects 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. 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. Being the final court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh [Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146 ] ; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary [Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 ] ; G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai [G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, (2006) 3 SCC 224 ] ; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari [Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, (2007) 8 SCC 600 ] and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary [Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary, (2007) 10 SCC 296 ] .)” 6. The second appeal was filed in the year 2005 and is now being decided by the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 i.e. about 19 years, therefore, the question arose before this Court whether this Court may decide the matter finally or remit it back to the First Appellate Court. 7. In this regard I have considered the material available on record, and since this is a declaratory suit, therefore, a finding of the First Appellate Court in terms of Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC are required, therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 is modified to the extent that the matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court to be decided afresh within 6 months. The First Appellate Court is directed to frame points of determination and to decide it according to law, without getting much influenced by the findings returned by the Second Appellate Court i.e. by the impugned order. 8. The impugned order is modified to the above extent and this writ petition is accordingly disposed of.