JUDGMENT : K.MANMADHA RAO, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2018 in R.A.No.74/2016 and R.A.No.32/2015 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkamagalur and set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2015 in O.S.No.411/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge at Chikkamagalur. 2. The appellant/respondent herein is the appellant/respondent before the first appellate Court, appellant herein is the defendant before the trial Court and respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court. 3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 4. The respondent/plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 411/2008 before the Principal Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, seeking recovery of Rs.3,07,406/- with interest at 21% per annum from the appellant/defendant. The brief facts of the case are that:- 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, being the owner of coffee plantations bearing Sy.Nos.152 and 153 at Hancharahalli Village, had grown approximately 300 Silver Oak trees and intended to sell them. The plaintiff expressed interest in purchasing the said trees, and accordingly, both parties executed an Agreement dated 27.08.2005, under which the defendant agreed to sell 300 Silver Oak trees at Rs.2,125/- per tree, amounting to a total consideration of Rs.6,37,500/-. 6. Pursuant to the Agreement dated 27.08.2005, the defendant received Rs.3,00,000/- in cash and Rs.50,000/- as advance from the plaintiff on the date of execution. The balance sum of Rs.2,87,500/- was agreed to be paid after cutting and transporting the trees. The plaintiff averred that he could cut and remove only 70 trees worth Rs.1,48,750/- and that when he attempted to cut and transport the remaining trees, the defendant prevented him from doing so. Despite payment of substantial advance, the plaintiff was unable to remove trees proportionate to the amount paid. He therefore issued a legal notice demanding performance of the contract or refund of the remaining advance with interest. The defendant replied with an untenable response, compelling the plaintiff to file the suit for recovery. 7. Per contra, upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement, denying the allegations. While admitting the agreement for sale of 300 Oak trees at Rs.2,125/- per tree, he contended that the plaintiff had additionally agreed to pay Rs.25/- per tree. 7. Per contra, upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement, denying the allegations. While admitting the agreement for sale of 300 Oak trees at Rs.2,125/- per tree, he contended that the plaintiff had additionally agreed to pay Rs.25/- per tree. The defendant further asserted that the plaintiff had already cut and transported 288 trees, of which 153 were of large size. According to the defendant, at that stage the plaintiff raised a dispute claiming that the remaining 12 trees were small and demanded an additional 12 trees in adjustment of the consideration. The same was refused by the defendant. 8. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff had earlier filed O.S.No.58/2007, which was still pending, and therefore the suit in O.S.No.411/2008 was not maintainable and was barred by limitation. 9. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether plaintiff proves that, as per agreement dated 27-08-2005, he has cut and removed only 70 silver oak trees, and the defendant not allowed to cut the remaining trees as agreed by him? 2. Whether defendant proves that, as per the said agreement the plaintiff has already cut and removed 288 trees? 3. Whether defendant proves that the plaintiff has agreed to pay Rs.24/- per tree in excess and it is adjusted towards remaining 12 trees? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitled for the interest at the rate of 21% p.a. by way of damages? 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit claim? 6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for current and future interest at the rate of 21% p.m.? 7. What order or decree? Additional issue: 1. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation? 10. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff himself has been examined as PW1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P7. On the other hand defendant has examined himself as DW1 and examined DW2 and 3 in his favour but not marked any documents. 11. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held as under:- 24. Therefore in all probability, the case of the plaintiff is believable. For all these reasons I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved that he has cut and removed only 70 trees and not more than that. 11. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held as under:- 24. Therefore in all probability, the case of the plaintiff is believable. For all these reasons I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved that he has cut and removed only 70 trees and not more than that. I also come to the conclusion that the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff has cut and removed 288 trees and that he had agreed to pay Rs.25/- in excess, which was adjusted towards 12 trees. Consequently I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative and issues No.2 and 3 in the negative. xxxx 30. While answering issue No.1 it is held that, the plaintiff cut and transported 70 trees worth Rs.1,48,750/- only and he could not cut and remove the remaining trees in proportion to a sum of Rs.2,01,250/-. That being so, certainly this amount is liable to be paid by the defendant. But unfortunately the plaintiff is not entitled for recovering that amount in this case. 31. Because the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant is in respect of the sale of trees and an agreement was also entered into in that regard. Ex.P.4 shows that based on that agreement, the plaintiff instituted a suit in OS.No.58/2007 against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain him from causing obstruction in cutting and removing trees. Instead of filing a suit for injunction, the plaintiff could have filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and in that suit itself it could have sought for the relief of injunction also. But it omitted and relinquished the relief of specific performance of contract and alternative relief of recovering the earnest money. 12. Assailing the said Judgement and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.74/2017 c/w.R.A.No.32/2015. The first appellate Court has framed following issues for consideration in R.A.No.74/2017:- 1. Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief as sought in appeal memo? 2. Whether the Judgment and decree of the trial Court is illegal, opposed to law and facts which requires interference by this Court? 3. What order or decree ? 13. The first appellate Court after considering the facts and circumstances held as under:- 21. Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief as sought in appeal memo? 2. Whether the Judgment and decree of the trial Court is illegal, opposed to law and facts which requires interference by this Court? 3. What order or decree ? 13. The first appellate Court after considering the facts and circumstances held as under:- 21. In the plaint it is stated that only 70 trees were cut and transported whereas in Ex.P.2 it is stated that 95 trees were cut and transported. On the other hand, the reply notice which is marked as Ex.P.3 the defendant has specifically stated that the plaintiff cut and transported 288 trees. Therefore, it is clear that there is already cut and transport of almost all the trees. 14. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that the plaintiff/respondent, being a commercial enterprise, was bound to maintain proper accounts and statistics of its transactions and that in the absence of such records, the finding that only 70 silver oak trees were cut and removed is arbitrary. Despite clear inconsistencies, such as the legal notice asserting removal of 95 trees and the reply notice alleging removal of 288 trees, the Courts below erroneously affirmed the figure of 70 trees without proper scrutiny. 15. It is further contended that the trial Court, as well as the first appellate Court, also failed to consider the admission of PW-1 that all the timber cut from the suit schedule property had been removed and further ignored the material evidence of DW-1 to DW-3, including DW-2 and DW-3 who directly worked on cutting and removing the trees. The respondent examined failed to establish witnesses that only 70 trees were cut. The Courts below further failed to note that the documents produced by the respondent were insufficient to hold issues No.1, 4 and 6 in the affirmative and that the plaintiff/respondent himself was in default under Ex.P-1, thereby disentitling him from maintaining the suit. 16. The appellant further contends that the suit is barred by limitation, and the trial Court erred in answering additional issue No.1 in the negative. The Courts also ignored that the person who instituted the suit lacked locus standi, not being the owner of the plaintiff/respondent enterprise nor authorised to give evidence. 16. The appellant further contends that the suit is barred by limitation, and the trial Court erred in answering additional issue No.1 in the negative. The Courts also ignored that the person who instituted the suit lacked locus standi, not being the owner of the plaintiff/respondent enterprise nor authorised to give evidence. The first appellate Court compounded these errors by dismissing the appeal without proper reasoning and by confirming the trial Court’s findings on issues No.1, 2, 4, 6 and additional issue No.1, despite clear contradictions in the respondent’s own documents, including Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has framed following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court as under:- i. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary which were available on record while passing a judgment and decree confirming the finding given by the trial court on Issue No.1, 2, 4 and 6 and additional Issue No. 1. ii. Whether the Lower Appellate was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant in R.A No.74/2016 and confirming the finding of the trial court on Issue No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 and additional issue No.1 by the trial court, Even though there is clear finding of the Lower Appellate court at para-21 that the plaintiff/respondent has already cut and transported almost all the trees on the properties in question. iii. Whether the Trial Court has fallen in not framing a proper and necessary issues on the basis of the defence taken by the appellant in his written statement. 18. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 19. It is observed that the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed by the trial Court with cost with an observation that the Order II Rule 2 of CPC mandates that the plaint shall include the whole claim. If any part of the claim is omitted or relinquished, separate suit in respect of part of the claim so relinquished is barred. 20. It is observed by the first appellate Court in R.A.No.32/2015 that the findings given on Issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and Addl. Issue No.1 in O.S.No.411/2008 are confirmed, but failed to draw a decree accordingly. If any part of the claim is omitted or relinquished, separate suit in respect of part of the claim so relinquished is barred. 20. It is observed by the first appellate Court in R.A.No.32/2015 that the findings given on Issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and Addl. Issue No.1 in O.S.No.411/2008 are confirmed, but failed to draw a decree accordingly. Hence, the first appellate Court has to draw the decree as per the observations made in R.A.No.74/2016 and R.A.No.32/2015 with regard to Issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and Addl. Issue No.1 in O.S.No.411/2008. 21. As per Order XLI Rule 23A of CPC, the suit was decided on merits, but proper findings were not recorded and no decree was drawn and had failed to follow the provisions under Order XLI Rule 31 and Order XX Rules 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Hence, the Judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is incomplete under Order XX Rules 6 and 7 of the CPC. The First Appellate Court must not record mere general expression of concurrence to the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial Court and the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail and deliver judgment in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. 22. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court place reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court:- H.Siddiqui (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. A.Ramalingam reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240; 20. The High Court failed to realise that it was deciding the first appeal and that it had to be decided strictly in adherence with the provisions contained in. Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called "CPC) and once the issue of the alleged power of attorney was also raised as is evident from Point (a) formulated by the High Court, the Court should not have proceeded to Point (b) without dealing with the relevant issues involved in the case, particularly, as to whether the power of attorney had been executed by the respondent in favour of his brother enabling him to alienate his share in the property. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC 21. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC 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. 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, Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumarito and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdharyl) 22. B.V.Nagesh Vs. H.V.Sreenivasa Murthy, while dealing with the issue, this Court held as under: 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. 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 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. 23. In light of the above judgments of the Apex Court and the provisions of the CPC, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court affirming the issues framed by the trial Court and by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, the First Appellate Court passed the impugned judgment without drawing a decree and the relief to which the appellant is entitled and disposed of the appeal in a cryptic manner and decided in an unsatisfactory manner. 24. Further, Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC mandates that the Judgment of the appellate Court must be in writing and include the specific points that are being determined, provide the decision regarding each of those points and the reasons that led to the decision on each point. If the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the judgment must specify the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 25. The First Appellate Court lost sight of the above provisions. Hence, the impugned Judgment is incomplete as no decree was drawn and it suffers from serious infirmity. Accordingly, without going to the merits of the pleading of the both parties and without touching the substantial question of law raised in this appeal, the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2018 in R.A.No.74/2016 and R.A.No.32/2015 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkamagalur is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. 26. 26. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) The judgment and decree dated 03.03.2018 in R.A.No.74/2016 and R.A.No.32/2015 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkamagalur, is set aside. (ii) The matter is remitted back to the first appellate Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. (iii) The first appellate Court is directed to reopen the case within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. (iv) The parties are hereby directed to appear before the first appellate Court without waiting to receive the notice in accordance with law. (v) The first appellate Court is directed to decide the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible i.e., within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (vii) There shall be no order as to costs in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.