JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2015, passed in R.A.No.10027/2014 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were defendants No.1 to 4, respondent No.1 to 3 were the plaintiffs, and respondent No.4 was defendant No.5. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 - Smt. Akkayamma is the wife of late Sri. Nanjappa. Defendants No.2 to 5 and plaintiffs No.1 to 3, are the children of the late Nanjappa and Smt. Akkayamma. It is contended that the suit schedule property was acquired by Nanjappa, and the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants, and no partition is effected between the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs demanded partition and separate possession. The defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. Defendants No.1 to 3 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.123/2003 against defendant Nos.1 to 4 for declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was ended up in a compromise before Lokadalath and, the respective parties are in possession of their respective shares. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues. 1) Whether plaintiffs proves that they are the joint family members along with defendants No.1 to 4 and suit schedule property is their joint family property? 2) Whether suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient? 3) Whether the defendants prove that, partition has already been taken place with respect to the joint family property? 4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought by them? 5) What order or decree? 3.3. 2) Whether suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient? 3) Whether the defendants prove that, partition has already been taken place with respect to the joint family property? 4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought by them? 5) What order or decree? 3.3. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1, one witness was examined as DW.2, and 8 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on assessing the verbal, and documentary evidence, answered issues No.1 to 3 in the affirmative, issue No.4 in the negative, and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs vide judgment dated 27.09.2014. 3.4. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.18/2007, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.10027/2014 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 3.5. The first Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration. 1) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below is perverse, capricious and arbitrary and it calls for any interference by this Court? 2) What order? 3.6. 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. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal, and set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.18/2007 and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs vide judgment dated 26.03.2015. It is ordered and declared that plaintiffs No.1(a to f) together, and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and defendants No.1 to 5 are entitled to 1/8 th share each in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds with a separate possession. 3.7. Defendants No.1 to 4, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.10027/2014, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. C.S.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. B.S.Murali, learned counsel for plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, and Sri.B.S. Dhananjaya, learned counsel for defendant No.5. 5. 3.7. Defendants No.1 to 4, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.10027/2014, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. C.S.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. B.S.Murali, learned counsel for plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, and Sri.B.S. Dhananjaya, learned counsel for defendant No.5. 5. Learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4 submits that the trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, has dismissed the suit, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable, as the plaintiffs have not included the other joint family properties. He submits that the first Appellate Court, being a final fact-finding Court, is required to re- appreciate the entire evidence, frame the appropriate points for consideration, and answer each issue framed by the trial Court. He submits that the first Appellate Court, without re-appreciating the evidence led by the parties, has passed the impugned judgment. He submits that the impugned judgment is not in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . He also submits that the first Appellate Court has not framed the proper points for consideration. 6. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this court in the case of B ANGARAPPA S/ O I YAPPA VS . R UDRAPPA S/ O M ARAPPA reported in ILR 2012 KAR 1020 . Hence, on these grounds, he prays to set aside the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court, and remit the matter to the first Appellate Court with a direction to frame the appropriate points for consideration, re-appreciate the entire evidence, and pass the judgment. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the first Appellate Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the first Appellate Court has considered the entire evidence on record, and rightly passed the impugned judgment. He submits that the impugned judgment passed by the first Appellate Court is in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. This Court, vide order dated 29.4.2025, framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether both courts erred in decreeing suit for partition in view of admission about earlier partition in Exs.P1, D1 and D8?” Note: Instead of typing as “first Appellate Court”, it is typed as both courts. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. This Court, vide order dated 29.4.2025, framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether both courts erred in decreeing suit for partition in view of admission about earlier partition in Exs.P1, D1 and D8?” Note: Instead of typing as “first Appellate Court”, it is typed as both courts. It should be read as “first Appellate Court”. 9. Reg. Substantial question of law The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession, claiming that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and, that they are members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and with no partition having been effected. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1; he reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in- chief, and produced 9 documents Exs.P1 to P9 and also examined one witness as PW.2. The examination of PW.2 on the same line of the examination-in-chief of PW.1. Further, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1. He has reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief, and marked 8 documents as Exs.D1 to D8. The defendants also examined one witness as DW.2. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, held that the plaintiffs had not included the other properties, and that the suit for partial partition is not maintainable, and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs, vide judgment dated 27.09.2014. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.18/2007, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.10027/2014, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 10. The first Appellate Court has framed the following points for consideration which reads as under: 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below is perverse, capricious and arbitrary and it calls for any interference? 2. What order? 11. From the perusal of the points for consideration framed by the first Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court has not framed correctly the points for consideration. Though, the trial Court has framed as many as 5 issues, further, from the perusal of the impugned judgment, the first Appellate Court, except recording the statements of the learned counsel for the parties, has not re-appreciated the evidence of PW.1, and PW.2, and DW.1 and DW.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui dead by LRs Vs. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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) 14. On 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 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. 15. 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. 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.10027/2014, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is set aside. iii. The appeal in R.A.No.10027/2014 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 the CPC, and the ratio laid down in the case of H. Siddiqui (D) by LRs (referred supra), in accordance with law. v. The parties are directed to appear before the first Appellate Court on 18.08.2025 without awaiting any notice. vi. Office is directed to transmit the records to the first Appellate Court forthwith. vii. All the contentions of the parties remain open. In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2017 does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly disposed of.