JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 1. The plaintiffs/appellants have challenged the concurrent findings of both courts below in dismissing the suit on merits on the violation of substantial question of law formulated on 21.10.2019 “Whether the lower appellate court below was justified in not deciding the issues with regard to possession of the appellants/plaintiffs, whereas, the appellate court has formulated issue No.5 with that regard and the trial court below failed to formulate any issue with regard to issue No.5, which has been framed by the appellate court and in that view of the matter whether the judgment of the trial court is perverse or not and is in violation of order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure.” 2. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the original suit for following reliefs:- (a) The plaintiffs’ title as Mundari Khutkattidar and holders of Mundari Khutkatti tenancy in village Hesadih, P.S. Sonhaati District-Ranchi be declared and the plaintiffs’ possession thereupon be either confirmed or recovered, if found dispossessed. (b) the costs of suit be awarded. (c) such other or further reliefs to which the plaintiffs are found entitled be awarded. 3. The factual background of the case as per plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs’ ancestors were Mundari Khutkattidar of village Hesadih within the police station Sonahatu, District-Ranchi which is shown in the genealogy as under:- 4. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs and their ancestors have also their Sasanderi at village Hesadih over the cadastral survey Plot No.3283 under Khata No.152 which was recorded as Gairmajarua of the said village and all the deceased ancestors of the plaintiffs have been buried in the aforesaid Sasandiri with the stone slab standing on their respective tombs which furnishes ample proof of their title as the descendants of the original founder of the said village as Mundari Khutkattidar village. It is further pleaded that during the last cadastral survey the name of Mangal Singh Munda, son of Jagna Rai was recorded as Mundari Khutkattidar under Khewat No.4 of the village Hesadih having total area 3005.69 acres as a subordinate Khewat being C.S Khewat No.13 was recorded in the names of Radhanath, Uddhav, Hari, sons of Burhan Babu and Sukhlal son of Chunnu Babu as Mundari Khutkattidars and on a permanent settlement by term for registered deed dated 17.04.1882 made by the Khewatdar of C.S. Khewat No.13 in favour of one Mangal Singh Munda, son of Bagun Rai Munda, C.S. Khewat No.14 came to be recorded as Mokarrori Khewat in the name of said settlee Mangal Singh Munda under the holder of Khewat No.13. Therefore, the setllee Mangal Singh Munda, son of Bagun Rai Munda was not the Mundari Khutkattidar of village Hesadih but was recorded as holding the land compromised with the CS Khewat No.13 under the permanent settlement as mentioned herein above, and the C.S. Khewat No.14 corresponds to the revisional Khewat No.22/1 to 4. 5. It is further pleaded that entries under the cadastral survey record of rights relating to Mundari Khutkattidar tenancy which was finally published under the sub-section 2 of section 83 of the C.N.T. Act in or about the year 1905 in the names of plaintiffs’ ancestor Mangal Singh Munda under C.S. Khewat No.4 is conclusive nature of evidence and incident of such tenancy and all particulars recorded in such tenancy as laid down under section 256 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The said Mangal Singh Munda holders of CS Khewat No.4 died sometime after final publication of the cadastral survey record of the rights leaving behind him only one son namely Sai Nath Singh Munda, who was the man of deficient intellect and understanding and died leaving two sons namely Jit Rai, plaintiff’s father and one Gaur Mohan Singh, who however died without any male issue before the revisional survey operation. Hence, Jit Rai, the plaintiff’s father was a mere child at the time of revisional survey record of rights and was not able to look after his interest during the time of operation of revisional survey of record of rights. Hence, Jit Rai, the plaintiff’s father was a mere child at the time of revisional survey record of rights and was not able to look after his interest during the time of operation of revisional survey of record of rights. Hence, taking advantage of aforesaid incompetency of the deceased plaintiffs’ father Jit Rai, during the revisional record of rights and of the sheer identity of the name of the plaintiff’s great grandfather Mangal Singh, the holder of cadastral survey Khewat No.4 with that the defendants’ ancestor Mangal Singh, the holder of the cadastral survey of Khewat No.14 and 22, the defendants predecessor in interest got the Mundari Khutkattidar lands held by plaintiffs’ ancestors as aforesaid recorded in their names under Revisional Survey Khewat No.3/1 and 3/6 in the finally published in revisional records of rights of the village in or about the year 1930. It is further pleaded that in the revisional survey Khewat No.3/1 came to be recorded as Mundari Khutkatti tenancy in the name of Kashinath Singh, son of Dubraj Singh likewise RS Kehewat No.3/2 came to be recorded in the name of Dewan Singh, son of Hakim Singh, RS Khewat No.3/3 in the name of Manmohan Singh, son of Mangal Singh, RS Khewat No.3/4 in the name of Nunu Babu son of Dubraj Singh and 3/5 in the name of Raghunath Singh, son of Dubraj Singh and RS Khewat No.3/6 was recorded as joint holders of Khewat No.3/1, 3/4 and 3/5 and the said entries in the name of aforesaid persons in the revisional survey Khewats are manifestly and purportedly wrong, as the persons so recorded were never the Mundari Khutkattidar of the village Hesadih, P.S. Sonahatu, District-Ranchi and the said incorrect entries in the finally published records of rights could not and cannot confer any right or title or interest upon the defendants’ ancestors or upon the defendants. 6. The plaintiffs has also given the genealogy table to the defendants as under: 7. It is further pleaded that the ancestors of the defendants cunningly manipulated and succeeded in not allowing the Mangal Singh Munda the recorded Khewatdaar of CS Khewat No.4 to be recorded in respect of lands of CS Khewat No.4. 6. The plaintiffs has also given the genealogy table to the defendants as under: 7. It is further pleaded that the ancestors of the defendants cunningly manipulated and succeeded in not allowing the Mangal Singh Munda the recorded Khewatdaar of CS Khewat No.4 to be recorded in respect of lands of CS Khewat No.4. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs ancestors Mangal Singh Munda, the recorded CS Khewat No.4 had resumed the lands CS Khata No.6 and 104 and the death of recorded Raiyati Sai Nath Singh Munda, son of Magan Singh, who died issueless and came in possession thereof. Those lands of C.S Khatiyan Nos.6 and 104 correspond to the lands recorded under original Khata No.4, 175 and 205 but erroneously continued to be recorded in the name of Sainath Singh Munda as in a cadastral survey. The plaintiffs’ ancestors who were real Mundari Khutkattidar have been reduced to the status of Rayatis. The defendants’ ancestors were not Mundari Khutkattidar of the village and were holders of lands as mere Mukarridar under the plaintiffs’ ancestors in the finally published cadastral survey record of rights and have succeeded in getting their names incorrectly recorded as holders of Mundari Khutkattidar tenancy in the finally published revisional survey of records of rights, who cannot hold the theme in view of the real possession as deducted in the finally published cadastral survey record of rights. It is further pleaded that the defendants’ ancestors was Mundari Khutkattidar of village Chokahatu and have their Sasandiri in the said village, which is clearly established by the genealogical table of their ancestors has recorded in the commutation Nathi prepared during the time of CS operation of the village. It is further pleaded that despite of incorrect entries, the plaintiffs and their ancestors all along are holding and possessing Mundari Khutkattidar land of village Hesadih either directly by Khas cultivation or indirectly by their tenancy. It is further pleaded that during the proceedings of recent survey, the defendants have been laying unfounded and imaginary claims to be the Mundari Khutkattidar tenants of the village Hesadih and have been and remained interested in denying the plaintiffs’ title as Mundari Khutkattidar village taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of the plaintiffs’ ancestors. It is further pleaded that during the proceedings of recent survey, the defendants have been laying unfounded and imaginary claims to be the Mundari Khutkattidar tenants of the village Hesadih and have been and remained interested in denying the plaintiffs’ title as Mundari Khutkattidar village taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of the plaintiffs’ ancestors. The plaintiffs came to know about the said wrong entries for the first time only during the course of recent survey of operation held in the village during the year 1981-86 and requested the defendants to amicably settle the dispute which was flatly denied by them. The recent survey of the village was on 31.10.1986, hence, this suit. 8. The defendants in their written statement have denied the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs and all the allegations and specifically prayed for dismissal of the suit at exemplary costs. The maintainability of suit barred by limitation, jurisdiction of the court and adverse possession has been pleaded additionally. It is specifically pleaded that the correct genealogy of the plaintiffs has been manipulated and the correct genealogy is as under:- 9. It is further pleaded that ancestors Sainath @ Larka (not Sainath Sigh as alleged) was alive during preparation of the RS Khewat Records of rights. The defendants have claimed to be original Khutkattidar of village Hesadih. 10. It is further pleaded that in the cadastral survey Mangal Singh Munda, son of Babun Rai Munda the ancestors of these defendants was recorded as Mundari Khutkattidar under cadastral Survey Khewat No.4 and village Hesadih and not any Mangal Singh Munda, son of Jugnu Rai Munda. The real fact is that the great grandfather of the plaintiffs was already dead at the time of cadastral survey operation which was completed in the year 1905 and the grandfather of the plaintiffs was recorded as Raiyat under CS Khata No.6 and 104 (later was a service khata) under CS Khewat No.4 recorded in the name of ancestors of this defendants. The said grandfather of the plaintiffs used to pay rent to his landlords and even signed by putting his mark on some counter files of the rent receipt granted to him. It is absolutely false to allege that Jit Rai who was older than Kashi Nath Singh Munda was not a minor during the alleged RS survey operation and was unable to look after him were entered into revisional survey operation. It is absolutely false to allege that Jit Rai who was older than Kashi Nath Singh Munda was not a minor during the alleged RS survey operation and was unable to look after him were entered into revisional survey operation. The defendants being Mundari Khutkattidar have their Jamindari in village Hesadih over the plot No.2283 under Khata No.150, which is Gairmazauria Khata held by the defendants and plaintiffs are absolutely outsiders. The dead body of plaintiffs’ ancestors has either been cremated or buried in general burial area in the village which further proves that the plaintiffs were never Mundari Khutkattidar of the village. In the village, CS Khewat Nos.4 and 114 were recorded in the name of Mangal Singh Munda, son of Babun Rai Munda. The CS Khewat No.4 corresponds to revisional survey Khewat No.3/1 and CS Khewat No.14 corresponds to RS Khewat No.22/1 and 22/4. CS Khewat No.22 corresponds to RS Khewat No.25 series. The ancestors of defendants Mangal Singh Munda was recorded to CS Khewat No.4 and corresponds to RS Khewat No.3/1 to 3/5 recorded in the name of Kashi Nath Singh Munda, Devan Singh Munda, Manmohan Singh Munda, Nunu Munda, Nunu Babu and Raghunath Singh Munda are conclusive proof of nature and antecedents of such tenancy as recorded in the said Khewat as provided by section 256 of CNT Act and conclusive all evidence discarded the same. The plaintiffs have laid a very false and concocted story on the basis of the son of Sainath @ Larka Sainath who was also alive at the time of revisional survey operation. Neither the plaintiffs nor any of the ancestors have ever held the Mundari Khutkattidar tenancy in Hesadih either directly or indirectly through any tenant. The story of Mukarridar in respect of defendants’ ancestors has no leg to stand, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is absolutely baseless and is a concocted story and is liable to be dismissed. 11. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the issues as under:- 1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? 2) Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action for the suit? 3) Is the genealogy given by the plaintiffs correct? 4) Whether the plaintiffs are Mundari Khuntakattidars and are the holders of Mundari Khuntakatti tenancy in village Hesadih, P.S Sonahatu Distt. 2) Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action for the suit? 3) Is the genealogy given by the plaintiffs correct? 4) Whether the plaintiffs are Mundari Khuntakattidars and are the holders of Mundari Khuntakatti tenancy in village Hesadih, P.S Sonahatu Distt. Ranchi 5) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of lands recorded in R.S. Khewat No.3/1 to 3/6 of village Hesaidh PS-Sonahatu Distt Ranchi? 6) To what relief/reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to? 12. Learned trial court has decided all the issues against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The main issues are issue Nos.3 and 4, wherein the learned trial court after scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by respective parties to the suit, came to conclusion that the genealogical table as pleaded and proved by the plaintiffs is doubtful and is not reliable. 13. On the other hand, the documentary evidence relied upon by the defendants (Ext.B, S) proves genealogy of the defendants beyond the doubt and also not rebutted and challenged by the plaintiffs. It was also found that the plaintiffs Amar Singh Munda who was examined as PW 1 has admitted in cross-examination that all his lands has been grabbed by the defendants and he has no Khutkattari land at present. The plaintiffs’ witness No.2 has also admitted that in the village Hesadih, the defendants’ father Kasinath Singh Munda was receiving village revenue and after his death Durga Prasad Singh is receiving revenue. It was also held that the plaintiffs’ ancestors were never Khuttidar of the village as such deciding both issues against the plaintiffs. While deciding the issue No.5, learned trial court on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence that the plaintiffs are not in possession of suit land rather the defendants are in physical possession over the same. It was also held that the plaintiffs’ ancestors were never Khuttidar of the village as such deciding both issues against the plaintiffs. While deciding the issue No.5, learned trial court on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence that the plaintiffs are not in possession of suit land rather the defendants are in physical possession over the same. In this case, the plaintiffs’ ancestors had knowledge about the adverse entry in the revisional survey Khewat from the year 1930 but no action was taken and revisional survey was never challenged and the suit was filed in the year 1986 and also in favour of the specific findings recorded over issue Nos.4 and 5, all these three issues were decided against the plaintiffs and suit was dismissed which has been assailed in the appeal bearing Title Appeal No.72 of 2009 and the court of Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi dismissed the appeal on merits vide judgment dated 13.11.2017. 14. It appears that the learned appellate court while deciding the appeal has re-appreciated the evidence oral as well as documentary in the light of all the six issues which were settled by learned trial court and concurred with the findings of trial court on every issue and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs/appellants on merits. 15. After considering the entire evidence on record adduced by both parties, learned appellate court has summarized its findings at issue Nos. 3 and 4 as follows: “1. That during the cadastral survey during inquiry the then settlement officer has found and mentioned two persons named Sainath, one is son of Bindo who was brother of Mangal Singh Munda, son of Bagun Rai. Another Sainath has been mentioned as son of Mangan the name of father of Mongan was Dombo. Further Dombo was son of Digwar. 2. That there is Sasandiri in the village which was made by ancestors of Sainath and belonged to Sandilya Gotra. They came from Loahatu and made a sasandiri of their own in the village. There are no other descendants of this sasandiri in the village at present. 3. That the Munda also belonged to the Sandilya gotra having his sasandiri in Chokahatu. All the rest property belonged to the same Gotra as of Mundas. Village was made out by the ancestors of the Mundas and these men. 4. There are no other descendants of this sasandiri in the village at present. 3. That the Munda also belonged to the Sandilya gotra having his sasandiri in Chokahatu. All the rest property belonged to the same Gotra as of Mundas. Village was made out by the ancestors of the Mundas and these men. 4. That Mangal Singh Munda son of Bagun Rai was regarded and considered as Munda of village Hesadih by the survey authorities including the settlement officer. 5. That there is no mention of any person having the name Mangal Singh Munda son of Jagnu Rai recognized as Munda of village Hesadih. The plaintiffs are claiming their rights, title and interest through Sainath who had sasandiri of their ancestors in the village. The plaintiffs have not adduced any documentary evidence that this Sainath was son of Mangal Singh Munda son of Jugnu Rai. On the other hand this Ext.B filled on behalf of the defendants shows that Sainath was son of Mangan son of Dombo. Ext-D certified copy of Khatian of village Hesadih shows khata no. 104 recorded in the name of Kakra Sainath son of Magan Mundari. The right has been recorded as Parjai and the name of landholder Mangal Singh Munda under Khewat no.4 which also shows that Sai Nath was son of Magan and he was holding land under Mangal Singh Munda. Therefore, plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are Mundari Khutkatidar of village-Hesadih. With the result, both the issues are decided against the plaintiff/ appellant and in favor of the defendants/ respondents and findings of the learned lower court on these issues are confirmed. 16. Issue No.5 has been dealt with separately by appellate court which pertains to question as “whether the land under RS Khewat Nos.3/1 to 3/6 is in possession of the plaintiffs which has been decided against the plaintiffs with conclusion that in the oral evidence plaintiff witness No.1 has failed to state the khata and plot of his land under cultivation” P.W.2 has admitted that he is not aware that which land the plaintiffs cultivate and also in view of the documentary evidence, it is found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over their land under RS Khewat No.3/1 to 3/6. Accordingly, findings of the trial court were affirmed regarding the above issues against the plaintiffs and have dismissed the appeal. 17. Accordingly, findings of the trial court were affirmed regarding the above issues against the plaintiffs and have dismissed the appeal. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs in the substantial questions of law involved in this case much stressed on issue no.5 which has not been decided by the appellate court. During the arguments also, it has also been highlighted that the learned appellate court has not observed the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC while deciding the appeal. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the above points and submits that the substantial question of law as posed and formulated at the instance of appellant is misconceived and is beyond the materials on record. From the perusal of the impugned order/judgment passed by the learned appellate court dated 13.11.2017. It is crystal clear that issue no.5 which was also settled by the trial court has been considered by the appellate court and decided against the plaintiffs/appellants as is mentioned in page No. 26 para 8 of the judgment. The learned appellate court had decided all the issues as were settled by the learned trial court and has recorded separate findings on each of the issues i.e. 3, 4 and 5 separately. In the light of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and there is concurrent findings of the court below against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants, the pleas of the appellants/plaintiffs that the judgment of appellate court is perverse and in view of violations of Order XLI, Rule 31 of CPC is absolutely not tenable and is beyond the records. It is further submitted that the very basis of the appellants’ case were the false and forged genealogy which was not in consonance with Khutkattidar tenancy of village Hesadih rather taking some benefit of similarities a false case was created. The plaintiffs were found never in possession of the suit land hence, the question of their dispossession does not arise. Therefore, there is no legal substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant and there are no merits in the appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 19. The plaintiffs were found never in possession of the suit land hence, the question of their dispossession does not arise. Therefore, there is no legal substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant and there are no merits in the appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 19. Now coming to the substantial questions of law formulated in this case which touches twin points:- (i) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and if they are not in possession then were they dispossessed? (ii) Whether the judgment of appellate court comes under the teeth of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC? 20. I have curiously examined the records of the case and gone through the evidence led by the parties and also concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial court and appellate court on each issues involved in this case. 21. So far, the possession over the suit land as claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of their ancestors’ rights as Khutkhattidar tenant of the village as reflected in the genealogical table produced by the plaintiffs have been found to be incorrect and it is specifically held by both the courts below that the plaintiffs’ ancestors were never Khutkattidar of the village in respect of the suit land rather the ancestors of the defendants were found to be the Mundas of the village having Mundari Khutkattidar rights and the Khatiyan cadastral survey and revisional survey stands in the name of defendants’ ancestors. So far possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land is concerned both the courts below has recorded concurrent findings that the plaintiffs themselves admitted in cross-examination that all the land has been grabbed by the defendants and they are not in possession of the same. The revisional survey was held in the year 1930 and despite of final publication those entries were never challenged. Since, the very pleadings of the plaintiffs on the basis of which the rights have been claimed and reliefs are sought are found to be not proved by the plaintiffs to believe their case to be genuine. 22. The revisional survey was held in the year 1930 and despite of final publication those entries were never challenged. Since, the very pleadings of the plaintiffs on the basis of which the rights have been claimed and reliefs are sought are found to be not proved by the plaintiffs to believe their case to be genuine. 22. It appears that all the aspects of the matter have been considered in right perspective by the both courts below, the appellate court is also watchful to decide all the issues separately on the basis of reappraisal and re-evaluation of the evidence oral as well as documentary adduced by the parties. Therefore, there is no question that the first appellate court has failed to consider the point of possession corresponding to issue No.5 framed by learned trial court. 23. Order XLI Rule 31 CPC provides the guidelines for the appellate court to decide the matter which may be extracted 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 pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.” 24. It is clear from the above provision that the judgment of the first appellate court has to set points for determination, record the decision thereon and give its own reasoning. Even when the first appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, it is necessary to comply with requirement of Order XLI, Rule 31 of CPC and non-observance of these requirements leads to infirmity in the judgment of the first appellate court. No doubt arises, when the appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, but need not restate affects of evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial court. Expression of general agreements with reasons given by the trial court would ordinarily suffice. 25. No doubt arises, when the appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, but need not restate affects of evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial court. Expression of general agreements with reasons given by the trial court would ordinarily suffice. 25. Keeping in mind the above principles, the examination of impugned judgment passed by the appellate court clearly shows that all the above requirements have been complied with in letter and spirit in as much as the learned appellate court has not only reappraised and re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on each main issue as are basis of the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants. The concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below do not warrant any interference by way of this appeal particularly in view of substantial questions of law formulated in this case. 26. In my considered view, there is no substance in the points of arguments placed on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs and no merits in this appeal calling for any interference. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of merits, which is fit to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. 27. The concurrent findings of the learned trial court and first appellate court are hereby upheld and confirmed. 28. Pending I.As. if any are disposed off, accordingly. 29. Let the copy of this judgment along with record of trial court be sent to the concerned court for information and needful.