JUDGMENT : Ashok S. Kinagi, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2013, passed in R.A.No.87/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Hunsur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 were the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, appellant No.3 was defendant No.4, and respondent Nos.1 to 3 were defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of a 1/4 th share in the suit schedule property. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one C.Perumal of Hunsur. He had a daughter by name Papamma and a son named Jayaraj. The suit schedule property fell to the share of Jayaraj and other properties were allotted to Papamma. Jayaraj died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Jayaraj and his wife Rajamma are Indian Christians and are governed by Indian Succession Act, 1925. Plaintiff Nos.1, 2, one Vittal and defendant No.4 are the children of Jayaraj. Said Vittal died leaving behind his wife by name Sumithra and the children by name Jaramu and somu i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the katha of the property stands in the name C.Perumal i.e., the father of Jayaraj. The plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect the partition. Therefore, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Hence, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, except for the fact that C.Perumal was the original owner of the suit schedule property and the relationship between the parties. It is denied that subsequent to the death of Perumal, Smt. Papamma and Jayaraj became the absolute owners of the suit property. During the lifetime of their father, he had given the suit property to the husband of defendant No.1 H.J.Kumar @ Vittala Shanthakumar and was asked him to manage the family and to perform the marriage of all their children. During the lifetime of their father, he had given the suit property to the husband of defendant No.1 H.J.Kumar @ Vittala Shanthakumar and was asked him to manage the family and to perform the marriage of all their children. The husband of defendant No.1 spent Rs.6,00,000/- for performing the marriage of all his brothers and sisters. He has also renovated the existing house by spending Rs.1,00,000/- and has paid taxes of about Rs.60,000/-. Hence, it is contended that subsequent to the death of Kumar, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are enjoying the suit property. The plaintiffs, inspite of knowing that defendant No.1 is a widow, have filed this false suit with an intention to harass her. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants and they are in joint possession? 2) Whether the defendants prove that Papamma and Jayaraju were given the suit schedule property to the husband of 1 st defendant under oral agreement and the defendants are in exclusive possession of the same? 3) Whether the defendants prove that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit? 4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled 1/4 th share each in the suit schedule property? 5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits? 6) What order or decree? 3.3. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 01 document as Ex.P1. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2 and marked 01 document as Ex.D1. 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 affirmative, issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative, issue No.5 answered accordingly and issue No.6 as per final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and it was ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs were entitled for a 1/4 th share in respect of the suit schedule property. 3.4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 27.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.109/2005, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.87/2011. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and it was ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs were entitled for a 1/4 th share in respect of the suit schedule property. 3.4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 27.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.109/2005, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.87/2011. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the appellants have made out sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule property is the absolute property of Jayaraj? If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4 th share? 3) What order? 3.5. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 as per the final order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.109/2005 was set aside. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and defendant No.4, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.87/2011, has filed this regular second appeal. 4. This Court, on 17.07.2014, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law : 1) Whether the reasons assigned by the appellate Court to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court are enough to sustain the judgment? 2) Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to decide the issue as to whether the parties are Christians or Hindus, if not, whether the appellant needs to be given an opportunity to lead additional evidence? 5. Heard the arguments of Miss. K.S.Harshini, for Smt.Pratima Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Sri Ramesh H.E, learned counsel for the defendants. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the First Appellate Court, while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, has not properly framed the points for consideration, and she also submits that the First Appellate Court has not assigned any reasons for reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. She also submits that the First Appellate Court has not recorded the findings on whether the parties to the suit are Hindus or Christians and without recording the same, has committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. She also submits that the First Appellate Court has not recorded the findings on whether the parties to the suit are Hindus or Christians and without recording the same, has committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. She also submits that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, is not in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. 7. To buttress her arguments, she has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. S IDDIQUI (D) B Y L R VS A. R AMALINGAM reported in AIR 2011 SC 1492 . Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the First Appellate Court has substantially complied Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC and has discussed the entire evidence on record. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. R EG . S UBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW N O .1 AND 2 Substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are discussed together as they are interlinked with each other to avoid the repetition of facts. 10. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession on the grounds that the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by Perumal, and after his demise, the plaintiffs and the defendants, being the legal heirs, have succeeded to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs and the defendants are tenants in common and no partition has been effected between them. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs have no right to acquire the share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and PW.1 reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and got marked one document as Ex.P1. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in- chief and got marked one document as Ex.D1. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and PW.1 reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and got marked one document as Ex.P1. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in- chief and got marked one document as Ex.D1. The trial court, after recording the evidence, held that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants, and they are in joint possession of the same and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a 1/4 th share each in the suit schedule property. The defendants aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.109/2005, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.87/2011, wherein the First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the appellants have made out sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule property is the absolute property of Jayaraj? If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th share? 3) What order? 11. From the perusal of the points for consideration framed by the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court has misdirected itself and failed to consider the point or issue involved in the suit for determination, “Whether the parties to the suit are Hindus or Christians?” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. S IDDIQUI (Supra), considering the provisions contained under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, had observed that the said provisions provide guidelines for the Appellate Court to proceed and decide the appeal. It is further observed that 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. 12. In para 18 of the judgment of H.S IDDIQUE (Supra) case, the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering its several judgments observed that: “18. 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. 12. In para 18 of the judgment of H.S IDDIQUE (Supra) case, the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering its several judgments observed that: “18. 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 of the said provisions if the appellate court's judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspect 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.” (Emphasis Supplied) 13. The First Appellate Court has not properly framed the points for consideration and has not assessed the evidence on record properly, except recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It has not applied its mind while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court did not record any sufficient reasons for reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.S IDDIQUE (Supra). The First Appellate Court did not record any sufficient reasons for reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.S IDDIQUE (Supra). Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The First Appellate Court did not record whether the parties to the suit were Christians or Hindus, without recording the findings regarding the status of the parties, proceeded to set aside the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.1 in the negative and substantial question of law No.2 in the affirmative. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: O RDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.87/2011 dated 18.06.2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur is set aside. iii. Appeal in R.A.No.87/2011 is restored. iv. The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC and pass an appropriate judgment, in accordance with law. v. It is made clear that this Court has not made any adjudication on the merits in issue. vi. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. vii. The office is directed to return to record to the First Appellate Court. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the pending IA’s, if any, disposed of accordingly.