JUDGMENT : Ashok S.Kinagi, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013, passed in R.A.No.345/2012 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2012 passed in O.s.No.187/2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and a perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his family members are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that originally, the said property was owned and possessed by Chikkamuniswamy @ Valmiki S/o Muniyappa, who is his ancestor and he had a son by name Munimarappa. Munimarappa had three sons by name Dodda Anjinappa, Marappa (plaintiff) and Chikka Anjinappa. It is contended that Chikkamuniswamy @ Valimiki had hypothecated the suit property and the land bearing Sy.Nos.74 in favour of Hanumantharayappa S/o. Chennappa for a sum of Rs.50/- vide Adhara Patra executed on 02.12.1994 and the same was redeemed. However, the possession was not delivered to the said Hanumantharayappa. It is contended that there is no conveyance regarding the suit schedule property and since then they have been in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that land bearing Sy.No.73/1 belonged to Chikkamuniswamy @ Valmiki S/o. Muniyappa and he hypothecated the same and has not taken the possession back. It is contended that the land bearing Sy.No.60 and 73/1 of Adinarayana Hosahalli village were put in public auction by the Revenue Department in 1937-38 for non- payment of land revenue and the public auction was held on 27.04.1938. It is contended that the land bearing Sy.No.60 and 73/1 of Adinarayana Hosahalli village were put in public auction by the Revenue Department in 1937-38 for non- payment of land revenue and the public auction was held on 27.04.1938. In the public auction Hanumantharayappa S/o. Muniyappa became the successful bidder and his name found a place in the revenue records and he alienated the suit schedule property and the land in Sy.No.60 in favour of Bachchanna S/o Hanumantharayappa under a registered sale deed dated 25.10.1939. By virtue of the registered sale deed the father-in-law of defendant No.1 and the father of defendant No.2 i.e., Bachchanna became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. After the death of Bachchcanna, defendants are in possession of the suit property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether plaintiff proves the illegal interference caused by the defendants over the suit schedule property? 3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants are illegally trying to alienate the suit schedule property? 4. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient? 6. Whether suit is time barred? 7. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the reliefs sought by him? 8. What order or decree? 6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined two witnesses as, PW-2 and PW-3 and marked 10 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10. In rebuttal, defendant No.1’s power of attorney holder was examined as DW-1 and examined two witnesses as DW-2 to DW-3, and marked 41 documents Ex.D.1 to D.41. 7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and 7 in the negative, issue Nos.4 to 6 in the affirmative, and issue No.8 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with cost vide judgment dated 11.07.2012. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.187/2008, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.345/2012 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 8. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with cost vide judgment dated 11.07.2012. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.187/2008, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.345/2012 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 8. The first appellate Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: POINTS 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? 2. What order? 9. The first appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 as per the final order. 10. The Appeal was allowed with cost throughout, vide judgment dated 28.09.2013 and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.187/2008 was set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.345/2012, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants and plaintiff. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the first appellate Court has not correctly framed the points for consideration and also the first appellate Court is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and answer each issue framed by the trial Court. He submits that the first appellate Court has not recorded its findings on the merits except by extracting the evidence of witness. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Bangarappa Vs. Rudrappa and another reported in ILR 2012 KAR 1020 . Hence, on these grounds, he prays to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and remit the matter to the first appellate Court with a direction, to pass the judgment in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short). 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC. He submits that the first appellate Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, framed appropriate points for consideration and assigned a detailed reasons. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC. He submits that the first appellate Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, framed appropriate points for consideration and assigned a detailed reasons. Hence he submits that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: “Whether the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate Court is in compliance with Order Xli Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ?” Reg: Substantial Question of Law No.1: 15. From the perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the first appellate Court has framed the following points for consideration. 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? 2) What order? 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the mandate of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC in the case of H. Siddiqui dead by LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240 . 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 there in, 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. 17. In paragraph No.18 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering its several judgments, observed thus: “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. 17. In paragraph No.18 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering its several judgments, observed thus: “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) 18. The first appellate Court, while considering and deciding the first appeal, should realise that it has to be decided strictly in adherence with the provisions contained in Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. 19. From the perusal of the judgment of the first appellate Court, the first appellate Court has not formulated the points for consideration properly, re- appreciated the entire evidence on record and did not answered each issue framed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is not in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC and it is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui (supra). Hence, on this ground, the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.345/2012 is arbitrary and perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. 20. In view of the above discussion, I answer the Substantial Question of Law in the negative. 21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.345/2012 is set aside. (iii) R.A. No.345/2012 is restored to its original file. (iv) The first appellate Court is directed to pass the judgment in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 21.07.2025, without waiting for any further notice. Office is directed to return the records to the first appellate Court.