JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal has been admitted for final hearing vide order dated 22.02.2023 on the following substantial questions of law: “Whether learned First Appellate Court committed perversity even after affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, by modifying the finding of learned trial court on the basis of the oral submission of learned counsel for the plaintiffs, who were respondents before learned First Appellate Court, but which submission is disowned by the plaintiff in this appeal, that the lands which have been developed by the plaintiffs, will fall in his share and by observing that the plot no. 59 area of 4.25 acres, 485, 486, 487 and 490, total area of 1.86 acres will fall in the share of appellant/ plaintiff in the Taktabandi by Survey Pleader Commissioner, by the ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs were the respondents before the learned First Appellate Court and the defendant was the appellant, thereby, rendering the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court to be vague one ?” 3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.03.2017 and decree signed on 22.03.2017, passed in Title Appeal No. 8 of 2015, learned District Judge-II, Deoghar, whereby the learned First Appellate Court has set aside the judgment dated 28.01.2015 and decree signed on 12.02.2015 in title Suit No. 142 of 1996, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.-I), Deoghar and allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants modifying the same on the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has recorded while deciding issue No. 8 that the learned Trial Court has passed the judgment after discussing the documentary and oral evidences available on record and passed the judgment impugned finding no infirmity in the judgment. Having held as aforesaid, the learned Appellant Court recorded the submissions of both the counsel and allowed the Title Appeal on contest in terms thereof. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the Appellant Court could not have allowed the appeal in the said manner as valuation of the properties is an important ingredient in the matter of distribution of shares of the property. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the Appellant Court could not have allowed the appeal in the said manner as valuation of the properties is an important ingredient in the matter of distribution of shares of the property. She has submitted that plaintiffs and defendants were entitled to half share of the property and the preliminary decree was passed and against the preliminary decree, the appeal was filed. She submits that the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court is fit to be answered in favour of the appellant and the findings recorded by the Appellate Court merely on the basis of submissions of the counsel of both the parties is not binding on the appellant. Learned counsel has also submitted that if the parties agreed at any point, then they could also agree to such point at stage of Taktha Bandi and there was no occasion for the Appellate Court to record any finding on mere submissions of the counsel for parties as to how the half share of each party was to be ascertained without any valuation for the purposes of apportionment with respect to the property. 6. Mr. Niranjan Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent is also present. 7. This Court finds that the partition suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming half shares of the property and the prayer was also made for appointment Pleader Commissioner for the purposes of Taktha Bandi. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit and declared half share of each plaintiff and defendant in Schedule – A, B, C, D & E of the property. The preliminary decree was drawn which was subject matter of appeal in Title Appeal No. 8 of 2015 by the defendant of the suit. 8. The learned Appellate Court re-casted the issues in the following manner: (I) Whether the appeal filed by appellant/ defendant is maintainable ? (II) Whether there was valid cause of action to the appellant/ defendant for filing of this appeal? (III) Whether the appeal has been filed within the period of limitation ? (IV) Whether the appellants/ respondents have the unity of title and possession over the suit property ? (V) Whether plot No. 59 area 4.52 acres was acquired on the basis of gift exclusive to his 1/2-1/2 share in the joint family property? (III) Whether the appeal has been filed within the period of limitation ? (IV) Whether the appellants/ respondents have the unity of title and possession over the suit property ? (V) Whether plot No. 59 area 4.52 acres was acquired on the basis of gift exclusive to his 1/2-1/2 share in the joint family property? (VI) Whether appellant/ defendant has developed plot No. 485, 486,487 and 490 total area 1.86 acres on his own expenses and planted valuable tress over those plot and these plots ought to be allotted in the share of appellant/ defendant? (VII) Whether these appellants/ defendants are entitled to got any more area than his half share in the joint family property? (VIII) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the court below is proper and in accordance with law? 9. Issue Nos. V, VI & VII were decided by recording certain arguments which was said to have been advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and certain concession was also recorded during the argument which also led to passing of the Appellate Court judgment in terms of the concession and arguments advanced by both the parties. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the Appellate Court could not have decided and allowed the appeal on the basis of so-called arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties at the stage of argument after recording their concession at the back of the litigating parties. Such kind of concession is certainly not binding on the appellant and such concession is not based on any materials on record. 11. Thus the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant as follows:- Inspite of affirming the judgement and decree passed by the trial court, the First Appellate Court committed perversity by modifying the finding of learned trial court on the basis of mere oral submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, who were respondents before First Appellate Court that the lands which have been developed by the plaintiffs, will fall in his share and by further observing that the plot no. 59 area of 4.25 acres, 485, 486, 487 and 490, total area of 1.86 acres will fall in the share of appellant/ plaintiff in the Taktabandi. It is held that such concession/submission of the counsel is not binding on the appellant. 12. 59 area of 4.25 acres, 485, 486, 487 and 490, total area of 1.86 acres will fall in the share of appellant/ plaintiff in the Taktabandi. It is held that such concession/submission of the counsel is not binding on the appellant. 12. Consequently, the judgment dated 20.03.2017 and decree signed on 22.03.2017 by Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 13. Since the partition suit is of the year 1996, the parties shall appear before the learned Appellate Court by filing fresh Vakalatnama and upon their appearance, the learned Appellate Court is directed to make all endeavor for expeditious disposal of the appeal based on the materials which are already available on record. 14. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 15. Resultantly, the instant Second Appeal stands allowed. 16. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed.