JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15 th March 2016 (decree sealed and signed on 31 st March 2016) passed by learned District Judge-II, Chatra in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2013 whereby the learned District Judge-II, Chatra has dismissed Title Appeal No. 2 of 2013 and affirmed the judgment dated 15 th December 2012 and decree sealed and signed on 08 th January 2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II, Chatra in Title Suit No. 27 of 2007. 3. The appellants were defendants in the suit before the learned trial Court. 4. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order 05 th February2019 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the possession of the defendants have not ever been considered by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court?” 5. The plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 27 of 2007 for adjudication on the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff also prayed that his possession over the suit land be confirmed. Alternatively, it was prayed by the plaintiff that if he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit or the plaintiff was found dispossessed by the Court, his possession over the suit land be restored through the process of the Court. The plaintiff also made a prayer that the defendants, their agents, servants or any other person in their behalf may be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff by a decree of permanent injunction. 6. The case of the plaintiff before the learned trial Court was as under: (i) The plaintiff was rightful owner and possessor over the lands under khata No. 17 total plots 54 area 2.10 acre and khata No. 19 plot No. 318 area 0.02 acre of village Pachmo P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra as described in Schedule A of the plaint. The lands appertaining to khata No. 17 measuring an area total 8.35 acre of village Pachmo was recorded in last survey settlement as raiyati lands in the name of one Lalit Mahto son of Gudo Mahto and lands of khata No. 19 plot No. 318 having an area 0.24 acre of village Pachmo was recorded in the name of Hussaini Mian and others. All recorded raiyats entered into amicable oral partition of the lands of khata No. 19 and share of Lalit Mahto was carved out measuring an area of 0.08 acre out of 0.24 acres lands under khata No. 19 plot no. 318 of village Pachmo. (ii) The recorded raiyat Lalit Mahto died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Pannu Mahto and Gopal Mahto, who became owner and possessor of the said property and Jamindari rent receipt was issued in the name of Pannu Mahto and others. Pannu Mahto dies issueless in the jointness with his brother Gopal Mahto @ Yadav and Gopal Mahto inherited the lands as sole survivor and successor of Lalit Mahto. Gopal Mahto died leaving behind his four sons namely, Haro Mahto, Somar Mahto, Udan Mahto and Heman Mahto. Haro Mahto also died issueless and thus right, title, interest and possession over the suit land of Lalit Mahto finally devolved upon the remaining sons of Gopal Mahto who possessed the same by paying rent to the State of Bihar and also obtained government rent receipt till 1989-90. (iii) The plaintiff purchased an area of 2.10 acres of land appertaining to khata No. 17 and an area of 0.02 acres land appertaining to khata No. 19 plot No. 318 of village Pachano by virtue of registered sale deed of valuable consideration in the year 1993 vide deed No. 3091/93 from Somar Mahto, Udan Mahto and Heman Mahto, all sons of Gopal Mahto and since then the plaintiff became rightful owner and was in peaceful physical possession over the same. (iv) The defendants started to disturb peaceful possession of the plaintiff and on the basis of concocted and imaginary story they started claiming the suit land. (v) It was further stated by the plaintiff that defendants purchased0.21 acres of land appertaining to khata No. 17 from Somar Mahto by registered sale deed No. 2932/84 in the year 1984 which is beyond the suit land. (v) It was further stated by the plaintiff that defendants purchased0.21 acres of land appertaining to khata No. 17 from Somar Mahto by registered sale deed No. 2932/84 in the year 1984 which is beyond the suit land. The defendant No. 1 and 2 and husband of defendant No. 3 and father of defendant No. 4 to 8 namely, Lukan Mahto @ Yadav in collusion and conspiracy to each other had filed a petition before Anchal Adhikari, Itkhori for cancellation of the demand which was admittedly running in the name of Somar Mahto and his brothers relating to khata No. 17 and Anchal Adhikari Itkhori ignoring the glaring facts had recommended for cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of Somar Mahto and others and further he recommended for opening jamabandi in the name of aforesaid defendants and directed to send the record vide Misc. Case No. 1 of 1993-94 before S.D.O., Chatra for final order. However, record was sent before L.R.D.C., Chatra which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 13/93-94/12/94-95 and learned L.R.D.C. Chatra without any inquiry passed erroneous order and cancelled the demand running in the name of Somar Mahto and others vide order dated19.07.1995. (vi) On 04.08.1995 the matter came to the notice of the plaintiff and then he filed an intervention petition before S.D.O., Chatra claiming interest and possession over the lands mentioned in the plaint where intervention petition of the plaintiff was allowed and record was placed before S.D.O., Chatra. After hearing both the parties, S.D.O. set aside the order of L.R.D.C., Chatra on30.11.1996. (vii) The defendants preferred an appeal against the order of learned S.D.O. Chatra before Addl. Collector whereunder learned Addl. Collector reversed the order of S.D.O. Chatra in Appeal No. 12/97 on 01.02.1999. Thereafter, the plaintiff had preferred revision which was dismissed on 28.10.2003 with observation to file title suit before the court of competent jurisdiction. (viii) Being aggrieved by the order the plaintiff filed writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 5394 of 2004 before this Court and thereafter he filed appeal before Division Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the appeal with direction to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of title. Accordingly, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the appeal with direction to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of title. Accordingly, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. (ix) It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants did not have any right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and they threatened the plaintiff on 15.07.2007. The cause of action for the suit arose firstly on 04.08.1995 when the matter came to the notice of plaintiff and thereafter on 01.02.1999 and thirdly on 28.11.2003 and fourthly on 15.05.2007 when Single Bench and Double Bench of this Court were pleased to dismiss the writ application and Letters Patent Appeal of the plaintiff. 7. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 disputing the claim of the plaintiff. Case of the aforesaid defendants before the learned trial Court was as under: I. They pleaded that the suit land was held by them as descendants of one Damar Mahato and they were in possession of the land. It was admitted that suit land was recorded in the name of Lalit Mahto. The defendants denied that the father’s name of Lalit Mahto was Gudo Mahto. They further denied the genealogy given by the plaintiff and amicable partition amongst the sharers of khata no.19, plot no. 318 of village Pachmo. It was stated that the suit land was the ancestral land of the defendants and the plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land. Lalit Mahto S/o Guri Mahto died issueless leaving behind his only brother Damar Mahto. As such his brother Damar Mahto inherited his entire properties. However, Lalit Mahato had executed the unregistered will deed in favour of his brother Damar Mahto in 1925, with respect to the suit land. Hence, Panu Mahto and Gopal Mahto had no concern with the suit property, rather they were the residents of Village Arar P.S Barhi and Dist-Hazaribag who subsequently came to village Pachmo. II. It was further case of the aforesaid defendants that said Haro Mahto died leaving behind his widow Bhagia Devi who came in exclusive possession of entire property of Haro Mahto. II. It was further case of the aforesaid defendants that said Haro Mahto died leaving behind his widow Bhagia Devi who came in exclusive possession of entire property of Haro Mahto. After death of Haro Mahto, Bhagia Devi again married with her Dewar Somar Mahto and after such marriage Somar Mahto and Bhagia Devi became owner of half of the properties of Gopal Mahto and half properties went to the share of Udan Mahto and Heman Mahto and property of Gopal Mahto and his heirs are different from the suit land. III. Damar Mahto had one son namely Khiru Mahto and Khiru Mahto had also a son namely Barhan Mahto, but Barhan had three sons namely, Ramtahal Mahto, Lukan Mahto and Ishwar Mahto. Lukan died leaving behind his sons Rewa Yadav, Wajir Yadav, Hulash Yadav, Jugal Yadav, Raj Kumar Yadav and a daughter Dhaneshwari Devi. Accordingly, defendant no.1 to 8 are the legal heirs of Lalit Mahto @ Yadav. IV. It was further case of the defendants that Somar Mahto has admitted in the court of LRDC, Chatra by filing affidavit that he and his brothers had no concern with the suit land and they were not related with Lalit Mahto. Likewise, Bhagia Devi, the wife of Late Somar Mahto also admitted before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag that Somar Mahto, Udan Mahto and Heman Mahto were not the heirs of Lalit Mahto, rather their names found place in register No. II erroneously and she gave up her claim over the suit land. Furthermore, Somar Mahto also admitted the right, title, interest and possession of Lukan Mahto and Ramtahal Mahto over the suit land by way of Bajidawa deed. Moreover, Somar Mahto and Bhagia Devi had only two daughters namely Ishwa Devi and Bajwa Devi, whereas Udan Maho had two sons namely, Babulal Yadav and Praveel Yadav. But the plaintiff has not impleaded the legal heirs of Somar Mahto and Udan Mahto and Dhaneshwari Devi as party in the suit. V. It was further case of the defendants that alleged sale deed no.3091 of 1993 is false, forged and fabricated. Since Somar Mahto, Udan Mahto and Heman Mahto are not the legal heirs of Lalit Mahto, so any sale deed executed by them is bogus and illegal. It was asserted that the defendants had always been in the possession of the suit land. Since Somar Mahto, Udan Mahto and Heman Mahto are not the legal heirs of Lalit Mahto, so any sale deed executed by them is bogus and illegal. It was asserted that the defendants had always been in the possession of the suit land. The alleged deed No.2932 of 1984 was maneuvered, bogus and illegal. However, after thorough inquiry, the LRDC cancelled the illegal demand running in the name of Somar Mahto. The defendants accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. VI. It was also asserted that the defendant no.1 died during pendency of the suit and as such his legal heirs were substituted who also adopted the written statement of rest defendants. 8. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: I. Whether the suit of plaintiff is maintainable in the present form? II. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence and adverse possession? III. Whether the suit is barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act? IV. Whether the suit is undervalued which is pecuniary jurisdiction of the court? V. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? VI. Whether there is valid cause of action for the suit? VII. Whether plaintiff has purchased the Schedule-A land mentioned in the plaint from the lawful owner and he has got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land by registered sale deed No.3091/93? VIII. Whether the Khatiyani raiyat Lalit Mahto died issueless and he had executed Sada Will in favour of his brother? if yes, what is its effect? IX. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as sought for or any other reliefs? 9. Before the learned trial Court, the parties adduced both oral and documentary evidences. 10. Altogether 6 witnesses were produced on behalf of the plaintiff. P.W.1 was plaintiff himself, P.W.2 was Praveel Yadav P.W.3 was Ramjan Mian, P.W.4 was Makund Rana, P.W.5 was Babulal Yadav and PW-6 was Thadeyus Minz. 11. On behalf of the plaintiff, various documents were produced. Ext. 1 was original mortgage deed, Ext. 2 was hand-note dated 15.09.1937, Ext. 3-series was original copy of summons issued against Gopal Mahto & Manbodh Pathak in Case No.191/1935-36, Ext. 4 was certified copy of sale deed No. 3091/93, Ext. 4/a was certified copy of sale deed No. 2932/84, Ext. 5 was certified copy of khatiyan of Khata No.17 of Village- Pachmo, Ext. 2 was hand-note dated 15.09.1937, Ext. 3-series was original copy of summons issued against Gopal Mahto & Manbodh Pathak in Case No.191/1935-36, Ext. 4 was certified copy of sale deed No. 3091/93, Ext. 4/a was certified copy of sale deed No. 2932/84, Ext. 5 was certified copy of khatiyan of Khata No.17 of Village- Pachmo, Ext. 6 was certified copy of order of Hon'ble High Court passed in LPA NO.771/2004, Ext. 7 was certified copy of order dated 30.11.1996 passed by S.D.O., Chatra in L.R. Case No.12/94-95, Ext. 8-series was certified copy of Register-II. 12. Altogether 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. D.W. 1 - Bazir Yadav was defendant no. 5 himself. Other defence witnesses were D.W.2 - Sita Yadav, D.W.3 - Ramkumar Yadav, D.W.4 - Dular Bhuian, D.W.5 - Ramjatan Bhuian, D.W.6 - Bharat Prasad, D.W. 7 - Chanchal Kishor Prasad, D.W.8 - Ashok Yadav, D.W.9 - Madan Gopal Mishra, D.W. 10 - Bibhav Singh and D.W. 11 - Bharat Prasad. 13. The defendants also adduced some documentary evidences which were marked exhibits. Ext. A was registered deed of relinquishment executed by Somar Mahto, Ext. B was original copy of compromise petition filed in Misc. Case No. 12/94-95, Ext. C was original copy of affidavit of Somar Mahato, Ext. D was original copy of Will, Ext. E was original jamindari rent receipt, Ext. F series was original rent receipts, Ext. G was certified copy of order passed in Misc. Case No. 12/94-95, Ext. H was certified copy of order passed in Misc. Case No. 01/93-94, Ext. I was certified copy of order passed in Complaint Case No. 155/95, Ext. J was certified copy of order passed in Revenue Revision No. 35/99, Ext. K was enquiry report of Anchal Karmchari and Ext. L was certified copy of order of Addl. Collector passed in Misc. Case No.122/1997. 14. While deciding issue nos. VII and VIII, the learned trial Court meticulously considered the materials on record and held that Lalit Mahto and plaintiff had purchased the suit land from lawful owner by registered deed no. 3091 of 1993. Accordingly, the issue nos. VII and VIII, as framed by the learned trial Court, were decided in favour of the plaintiff. While deciding issue nos. VII and VIII, the learned trial Court meticulously considered the materials on record and held that Lalit Mahto and plaintiff had purchased the suit land from lawful owner by registered deed no. 3091 of 1993. Accordingly, the issue nos. VII and VIII, as framed by the learned trial Court, were decided in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court held the plaintiff entitled for right, title, interest and possession over the suit land mentioned in schedule A to the plaint which had been purchased by the plaintiff through registered deed no. 3091 of 1993. The suit was accordingly decreed by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. 15. The defendants filed appeal before the learned 1 st appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, after considering the materials on record, dismissed the appeal and recorded its findings in paragraph 20 to 21 as under: “ 20. From independent scrutiny of the exhibit. A it appears that Somar Mahto had relinquished his share in favour of Ram Tahal Mahto and Lukan Mahto, the common ancestor of the defendants. Exhibit.A reveals that in this deed father's name Somar Mahto has been shown Gopal Mahto of village Pachmo, P.S Itkhori, Dist- Chatra. This fact also finds support from exhibit.4/a by which the aforesaid vendee Lukan Mahto had purchased 0.21 acres land of khata No.17 of plot No.921, 946 & 986 from said Samar Yadav S/o. Gopal Yadav of mouza Pachmo. Admittedly, defendant no.3 is the wife of Lukan Mahto whereas defendant No.4 to 8 are the sons of said Lukan Mahto. In the said sale deed father's name of Somar Mahto has been mentioned as Gopal Mahto. This also puts a question mark on the facts if the recorded tenant Lalit Mahto had already transferred the land of Khata No.17 & 19 to the ancestor of the defendants then how the defendants have got the release deed from Samar Mahto with respect to the same land. It further appears that Somar Mahto and his brothers had sold the suit land to the plaintiff vide sale deed no.3091/93 whereas said compromise petition (Exhibit.B) and affidavit (Exhibit.C) were executed in 1995 & 1996. But said Somar Mahto had not filed any suit for cancellation of the aforesaid sale-deed. It further appears that Somar Mahto and his brothers had sold the suit land to the plaintiff vide sale deed no.3091/93 whereas said compromise petition (Exhibit.B) and affidavit (Exhibit.C) were executed in 1995 & 1996. But said Somar Mahto had not filed any suit for cancellation of the aforesaid sale-deed. In any case, since the suit lands is ancestral property of vendors of the plaintiff i.e. Somar and others hence said Somar could not have executed such a relinquishment deed in favour of the defendants or their ancestors in respect of the coparcenary properties, depriving the rights of the other coparceners in the said properties, the said relinquishment deed even if believed to have been executed would be a void document. There is yet another aspect to be considered. From perusal of record, it appears that exhibit.E & F are alleged to be Zamindari rent receipt issued in 1945 standing in the name of Damar Mahto and Damar Gope respectively but these receipts have not contained any seal. Likewise signatures of issuing authority have not been proved by the defendants. Defendants have also not proved any rent receipt either Zamindari or Government issued in favour of said Damar Mahto prior to these receipts. Likewise, exhibit.F/1, F/2 and F/3 were issued on 22.11.2010, 03.03.2011 and 17.06.2002 but defendants have not proved any receipt for the period fro, 1946 to 2001 and2003 to 2009. It also creates doubt on the defendants' case. There is nothing else on which the appellant has sought to rely. 21. In view of above assessment of the evidence on record, therefore, the learned trial Court has minutely scrutinized the evidence on record and arrived at the said findings that the vendor of the appellants had right, title and interest over the suit land and they have sold the suit land to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed no.3091/1993 as such the plaintiff got right, title and interest over the suit land. Hence, no case is made out by the appellants for interference in the said findings recorded by the trial Court. For the reasons recorded above, I have no hesitation to concur the findings of the learned trial Court. In the result, there is no force in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs.” 16. Hence, no case is made out by the appellants for interference in the said findings recorded by the trial Court. For the reasons recorded above, I have no hesitation to concur the findings of the learned trial Court. In the result, there is no force in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs.” 16. The learned counsel for the appellants while placing the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court has submitted that an issue was framed as issue no. (ii) as to whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence and adverse possession and finding with regards to issue no. (ii) has been recorded in paragraph 10 of the Trial Court’s judgment. The learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court has considered the point of limitation, but has not considered the point of possession much less adverse possession. 17. So far as the learned 1 st Appellate Court is concerned, a specific plea was raised that the learned Trial Court has not considered the point of possession of the defendants as recorded in the submission in paragraph 8 of the Appellate Court’s judgment, but perusal of the 1 st Appellate Court judgment reveal that the point of possession has not at all been considered and the learned 1 st Appellate Court has recorded that the plaintiffs have got right, title and interest over the suit land. 18. The learned counsel has submitted that the point of possession was directly in issue in view of the fact that the plaintiffs themselves have sought a relief of confirmation of possession with an alternative relief if they are found dispossessed, the property be restored to them. 19. The learned counsel submits that the substantial question of law is fit to be answered in favour of the appellants and consequently the matter is to be remanded to the 1 st Appellate Court which is the final court of fact and law. 20. The learned counsel has also submitted that the point of limitation has also not been properly considered by the learned Trial Court and therefore an issue arises in this case as mentioned in page no. 15 of memo of appeal, substantial question of law no. (e), and he submits that additional substantial question of law be also framed for consideration. 21. 15 of memo of appeal, substantial question of law no. (e), and he submits that additional substantial question of law be also framed for consideration. 21. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the point of limitation has been duly considered by the learned court and the learned court has given the benefit of the fact that the plaintiffs were pursuing the matter before another court and ultimately pursuant to the order passed by the court, the suit was filed. He has submitted that Section 14 of Limitation Act applies and the same principle has been applied by the learned court for considering the point of limitation. He submits that substantial question of law on the point of Limitation, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, does not arise and therefore no such substantial question of law be framed. 22. The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the substantial question of law with regard to possession is concerned, the learned Trial Court has discussed the same finding under two issues by the learned Trial Court at paragraph no. 8 onwards. He has submitted that at internal page 17 of the Trial Court’s judgment it has been recorded that name of Gopal Mahto finds mention in Register-II and he is in possession over the suit land also but despite this, demand in the name of Somar Mahto s/o Gopal Mahto was cancelled. So far as the learned 1st Appellate Court is concerned, the learned counsel has submitted that, since it was a judgment of affirmation, there was no need for further discussion. The learned 1 st Appellate Court having found right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit property, has dismissed the appeal and has confirmed the judgement of the learned Trial Court. 23. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that so far as the learned 1 st appellate Court is concerned, there is no finding with respect to the possession of the property. However, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 [Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. And others] and has referred to Paragraphs 15 and 16 thereof to submit that in case of vacant land, possession follows title. However, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 [Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. And others] and has referred to Paragraphs 15 and 16 thereof to submit that in case of vacant land, possession follows title. He submits that title has already been declared in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and therefore, by default the respondent would be entitled for possession. 24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants on the other hand submitted that the respondent (plaintiff) was claiming only part of the suit property and the nature of land is also required to be considered while considering the possession. He has submitted that in view of the substantial question of law involved in this case and on account of the admitted fact that the learned 1 st appellate Court has not returned any finding with regard to possession and so far as the learned trial Court is concerned, there are discussions of materials on record and no clear finding in so many words are there with regard to possession, therefore, the matter is required to be remitted back at least to the learned 1 st appellate Court which is the final Court on fact and law. 25. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in case of possession being decided in favour of the appellants, some right would certainly crystalize in their favour and the possession would follow the title. 26. In further response, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in case the possession of the appellants is decided, then only the respondent will be entitled for consequential relief/further follow-up action. Findings of this Court 27. So far as framing of additional question of law is concerned, this court finds that the learned Trial Court has scrutinized the materials on record and recorded a specific finding in paragraph 10 that the plaintiffs ultimately approached the Civil Court when the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the case arising out of mutation proceedings with a direction to approach the Civil Cour of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of title. The suit was filed in the year 2007 itself. The suit was filed in the year 2007 itself. From perusal of the First Appellate Court’s judgment, this court finds that no specific argument has been advanced in connection with the point of limitation though in the memo of appeal, the appellants had raised a ground that the learned Trial Court had not considered the fact that both the parties were residents of the same village. As recorded in the learned Trial Court’s judgement limitation was considered by referring to the order passed by the High Court asking the plaintiffs to get their title declared. This court is of view that no substantial question of law in connection with the point of limitation is involved and accordingly the prayer regarding framing additional substantial question of law is rejected. 28. Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure is quoted as under:- “ 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.” 29. This aforesaid provision was subject matter of consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2022) 3 SCC 90 (Manjula and others Vs. Shyamsundar and others). It has been held that the appellate court has the jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court and it is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and the jurisdiction of the appellate court involves re-hearing of appeal on question of law as well as the fact and all the questions of fact and law are open for consideration. It has also been held that the judgment of the appellate court 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. It has also been held that the judgment of the appellate court 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. It has been held that the first appellate court is required to comply with the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure and non-observance of these requirements amounts to the serious infirmity in the judgment. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted 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; and (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.” 30. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2010) 13 SCC 530 (B. V. Nagesh and Another) wherein it has been held that without framing points for determination and considering both facts and law and without proper discussion and assigning reasons, the first appellate court’s judgment cannot be sustained. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2010) 13 SCC 530 (B. V. Nagesh and Another) wherein it has been held that without framing points for determination and considering both facts and law and without proper discussion and assigning reasons, the first appellate court’s judgment cannot be sustained. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under: - “ 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, SCC p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v.Sangram, SCC p. 758, para 5.) 1. 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.” 31. 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.” 31. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1 st appellate court and in view of the discussions made above in connection with the impugned judgement, this Court finds that the learned 1 st appellate court has not adjudicated the 1 st appeal in accordance with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC when read with the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 32. Considering the contours of the substantial question of law framed by this Court, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has discussed the materials with regard to possession, but no clear finding in so many words has been recorded. This Court also finds that the learned 1 st appellate Court has not at all returned any finding with regard to possession and consequently, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants. However, this Court is of the view that it would be suffice, if the matter is remanded to the learned 1 st appellate Court for consideration of the materials on record and there is no doubt that the learned 1 st appellate Court is the final court of fact and law. 33. The judgment passed by the learned 1 st appellate court is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded to the learned 1 st appellate court for fresh decision. 34. Considering the nature of the substantial question of law, this Court is of the view that the remand to the learned 1 st appellate Court is a limited remand only for the decision on the point of possession. 35. So far as the rival contentions which have been advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and the judgments which have been relied upon, this Court is not inclined to make any observation in that connection and it would certainly be open to the learned 1 st appellate Court to consider all the materials on record and the legal submissions to be advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 36. 36. It is further made clear that the learned 1 st appellate Court would decide the case confining itself to the materials which have already been placed before the learned trial Court. 37. The parties to appear before the learned 1 st appellate Court on 28.07.2025 by filing Vakalatnama. Upon their appearance, the learned 1 st appellate Court shall make all endeavour to decide the first appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months as the title suit relates to the year 2007. The parties to cooperate. 38. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to appear before the learned 1 st appellate Court suo moto and there is no question of giving any fresh notice. 39. This second appeal is accordingly disposed of. 40. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.