JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2015 passed in R.A.No.10021/2014 by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of Sri Munivenkatappa, who is the father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4. He died intestate on 20.10.1961 leaving behind the plaintiffs. The grant certificate was issued on 17.03.1964 in the name of the mother of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 by name Smt. Muniyamma. The plaintiffs and their mother have inherited the suit property from Munivenkatappa. The plaintiffs and Muniyamma had continued in actual and physical possession of the suit schedule property. The mother of the plaintiffs died leaving behind them. It is contended that the defendant is the stranger to the suit property and the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is contended that on 12.12.2007, the plaintiffs' moved the revenue authorities for change of the revenue records of the suit schedule property from the name of Munivenkatappa to their names. At that time, the defendant raised a dispute making a false claim over the suit schedule property. The said dispute was registered by the revenue authorities and the said dispute is still pending. Hence, they denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. Accordingly, pray to decree the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also contended that the suit is hopelessly barred by time and it is contended that the suit property was granted by Government as darkasth land in favour of Smt. Muniyamma and the said property was transferred in the name of Muniyamma. 5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also contended that the suit is hopelessly barred by time and it is contended that the suit property was granted by Government as darkasth land in favour of Smt. Muniyamma and the said property was transferred in the name of Muniyamma. Muniyamma had raised a loan from the Vyavasaya Seva Sahakar Sangha and she was unable to repay the said loan. The said Sangha held a public auction on 07.08.1979 regarding the suit schedule property. In the said auction, the father of the defendant by name Doddanarasimhaiah was one of the bidders and he paid 15% of the bid amount to the Sangha. The Sangha put the father of the defendant in actual and physical possession of the suit property. It is contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. The trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: i. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? ii. Whether the defendant proves that they are purchased suit schedule property under public action in the year 1979? iii. Whether suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient? iv. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought by them? v. What order or decree? 7. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, Mohan Kumar was examined as PW.1, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, examined three witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4 and marked 37 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D37. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue Nos. 1 and 4 in the negative, issue No.2 and 3 in the affirmative, issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs and exemplary cost of Rs.3,000/- vide judgment dated 31.05.2014. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in OS No. 248 of 2008, preferred an appeal in RA No.10021 of 2014 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Court at Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 8. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs and exemplary cost of Rs.3,000/- vide judgment dated 31.05.2014. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in OS No. 248 of 2008, preferred an appeal in RA No.10021 of 2014 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Court at Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 8. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel by the parties, framed the following points for consideration: i. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse, capricious and arbitrary and it calls for any interference by this Court? ii. What order? 9. The first appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, answered point No.1 in the affirmative, and point No.2 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed with cost throughout. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. No.248 of 2008 was set aside and suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with cost and it is declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 10. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.10021 of 2014, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant and also the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 12. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the first appellate court being the final fact finding court is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence and has to answer each issues framed by the trial Court and has to frame the proper points for adjudication as per Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also submitted that the first appellate court has not properly framed the points for consideration and to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.Siddiqui (D) by LRs. vs. A Ramalingam reported in (2011) 2 KCCR 1389 . The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is not in compliance with Order XLI to 31 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and remand the matter to the first appellate court with a direction to dispose of the appeal in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC. 13. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and remand the matter to the first appellate court with a direction to dispose of the appeal in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs supported the impugned judgments and he submits that the first appellate court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court are in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. This Court, vide order dated 30.10.2025, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the appellant proves that the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is not in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC, as the first Appellate Court has not re- appreciated the entire evidence on record while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court?" Reg. Substantial question of law: 15. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The defendant has raised several grounds in the written statement. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the ownership over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in R.A.No.10021 of 2014. The first appellate court has framed the points for determination which reads as follows: Point No.1: Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse, capricious and arbitrary and it calls for any interference by this Court? Point No.2: What order 16. Except these points for consideration, the first appellate court has not framed any other points for consideration. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure. Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC provides that the first appellate court is required to frame the proper points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and whether the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 17. Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC provides that the first appellate court is required to frame the proper points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and whether the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 17. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the first appellate court, the first appellate court has not properly framed the points for determination and also not properly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui dead by LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam reported in (2011) 2 KCCR 1389 , had an occasion to deal with the requirements of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the said provisions provide guidelines for the first appellate Court as to how the Court has to proceed and decide the appeal. It is further observed that the provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. It must be evident from the judgment of the first appellate Court that the Court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the material on record. 19. In paragraph No.18 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering its several judgments, observed thus: “18. … … 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 the 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. (emphasis supplied) 20. From the perusal of the judgment of the first Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court has recorded the general expression, has not re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and has not framed the proper points for consideration. (emphasis supplied) 20. From the perusal of the judgment of the first Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court has recorded the general expression, has not re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and has not framed the proper points for consideration. The judgment passed by the first Appellate Court is not in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, and is contrary to the ratio laid down in the case of H. Siddiqui (D) by LRs (referred supra). The matter requires reconsideration by the first Appellate Court. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is required to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. 21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed ii. The judgment and Decree dated 09.01.2015 passed in R.A.No.10021 of 2014 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is hereby set aside. iii. The appeal in R.A.No.10021 of 2014 is restored to its original file. iv. The First Appellate Court is directed to pass judgment in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC and the ratio laid down in the case of H. Siddiqui (D) by LRs (referred supra), in accordance with law. v. Registry is directed to transmit the records to the first appellate court. vi. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 28.01.2026 without awaiting any further notice from the first appellate Court. vii. It is made clear that this court has not made any adjudication on merits in issue. viii. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. ix. Amount in deposit to be transmitted to the first appellate court. x. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly.