JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgement dated 19.12.2016 (decree sealed and sighed on 06.01.2017) passed by learned District Judge -II Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 152 of 2009 whereby the learned 1 st Appellate Court has reversed the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court’s judgement has been passed by learned Subordinate judge-5, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 208 of 1995 whereby the suit was decreed. 2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 02.11.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:- “I. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the Learned Lower Court have committed serious error of law in not considering that certain registered document relating to land take effect against the unregistered document in view of provision as contained in Section 50 of the Registration Act? II. Whether the unregistered agreement dated 21.09.1991 would superseded over the registered sale deed dated 31.07.1992 which is prior in time? III. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court while recording the finding have committed serious error by holding that the unregistered agreement dated 21.09.1991 is part of Exhibit A? IV. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court suffers from perversity in as much as unregistered agreement dated 21.09.1991 is part of Exhibit A without examining the documentary evidence available on the record to its true perspective? V. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Lower Appellate Court suffers from the vices of perversity and the same is contrary to the admissible evidence available on the records? VI. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court while reversing the well-considered and reasoned order passed by the learned Trial Court should have specifically advert its own reasoning by meeting the reasons assigned at para-7 of the Trial Court judgment?" 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant who was the plaintiff before the Court submits that the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the same has been reversed by the Appellate Court and therefore this second appeal is against the judgement of reversal. He has further submitted that the learned Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidences on record and also the boundaries of the property involved in the registered sale deed no. He has further submitted that the learned Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidences on record and also the boundaries of the property involved in the registered sale deed no. 5937 dated 31.07.1992 (Exhibit-1) and registered sale deed dated 12.08.1991 (Exhibit-A) has come to the conclusion that the properties are not one and the same. The learned counsel submits that the Appellate Court while reversing the decree has considered the point for determination as issue nos. 3 and 4 framed by the learned Trial Court but no finding has been recorded in connection with the aforesaid finding of the learned trial court. Rather, there is no discussion in the Appellate court’s judgment in connection with the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. He has also submitted that the learned Appellate Court while deciding the appeal has proceeded under the assumption that the property covered by Exhibit-A and Exhibit-1 are the same and has applied Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act which is applicable only when the identity of the property is one and the same. The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned Appellate Court has recorded that in exhibit-A there were two vendors namely Raju Karmakar and his brother Niranjan Karmakar whereas the plaintiff had purchased the property (exhibit-1) only from Raju Karmakar. 4. The learned counsel submits that the last substantial question of law which has been framed by this Court i.e. substantial question no. VI is attracted in the present case and in such circumstances the matter is fit to be remanded to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration. He has also submitted that the answer to the aforesaid substantial question of law will have a direct bearing on all other substantial questions of law which have been framed by this Court and therefore there may not be any limited remand and all the points be left open for consideration of the learned Appellate Court while deciding the appeal afresh. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment passed by this court in S.A. No. 28 of 2017 decided on 02.01.2025 and has submitted that this court has laid down elaborately by referring to the other judgments as to how the first appeal is to be decided in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment passed by this court in S.A. No. 28 of 2017 decided on 02.01.2025 and has submitted that this court has laid down elaborately by referring to the other judgments as to how the first appeal is to be decided in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer has not been able to show any discussion by the Appellate Court with regard to the aforesaid findings which have been recorded by the learned Trial court in paragraph 7 of the Trial Court’s judgment. However, he has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has rightly drawn adverse inference on account of the fact that the plaintiff never appeared before the learned Trial Court as a witness. He has also submitted that the Appellate court’s judgment does not call for any interference. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that even if the case of the appellant is taken into consideration, then also, the respondents were put in possession of the property by virtue of un-registered agreement dated 21.09.1991 and therefore the provision of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act would come into play and consequently the factum of the agreement being un-registered has no consequence. 8. The suit was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of khas possession or in the alternative recovery of possession if found out of possession during the pendency of the suit with respect of schedule A property. The plaintiff claimed the suit property of 1 and ½ kathas by virtue of registered sale no. 5937 dated 31.07.1992 executed by one Raju Karamkar and claimed that he has constructed a house on 1 katha and left the remaining for garden whose details have been mentioned in schedule B of the plaint. It was also asserted that mutation was also carried out and the plaintiff was paying rent to the government. It was alleged that the defendants were trying to take possession of the schedule B land by breaking the wall and a proceeding was also initiated under section 144 Cr.P.C. at the instance of the defendants and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had made the proceeding absolutely against the husband of the plaintiff. 9. It was alleged that the defendants were trying to take possession of the schedule B land by breaking the wall and a proceeding was also initiated under section 144 Cr.P.C. at the instance of the defendants and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had made the proceeding absolutely against the husband of the plaintiff. 9. The defendant filed written statement and contested and interalia raised that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts. It was asserted that the disputed property was belonging to Rameshwar Karmkar and his two brothers and upon partition 1/3 rd property devolved upon each brother and they came in possession of their respective shares . Rameshwar Karmkar had two sons , namely, Raju Karamkar and Niranjan Karamkar brothers . It was alleged that the plaintiffs had suppressed the fact that Raju Karamkar and Niranjan Karamkar had sold 1½ katha of land by registered sale deed dated 12.08.1991 in which a kuchcha house was constructed and gave the boundaries of the property so purchased. The defendants claimed that the property was also mutated in their favour and claimed that the property was wrongly transferred by virtue of registered sale no. 5937 dated 31.07.1992 and the case was filed to override the order passed in the proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. The defendants denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 10. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial court for consideration: - i. Whether the suit of the plaintiff was maintainable? ii. Whether there is valid cause of action of the plaintiff to file the suit? iii. Whether plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? iv. Whether plaintiff has possession over the suit land? v. Whether the defendants have right, title, interest and possession over the suit land ? vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief or not? 11. The learned Trial Court took up the issue no. (iii) , (iv) and (v) together and after scrutiny of the materials placed on record including the registered sale deeds of both the parties recorded a finding that the identity of suit property of the plaintiff is different from the property of the defendant no.1 and 2; the Trial Court disbelieved the story of the defendants that they had purchased ½ kathas through agreement of sale dated 21.09.1991 over and above 2 khatas by registered sale deed dated 12.08.1991. The learned Trial Court observed that the real dispute was with regards to schedule B property which was a part of schedule A property and the schedule A property was purchased by the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 31.07.1992 and the defendants were claiming the schedule B property on the basis of agreement of sale dated 21.09.1991 which was over and above their property purchased through registered sale deed dated 12.08.1991. The learned Trial Court declared the right, title, interest and possession over the schedule B property which was a part of schedule A property and restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and thus decreed the suit. 12. The learned appellate court also considered the same issues and took up issue no. 3 and 4 together as the main issues. The learned Appellate Court drew adverse inference against the plaintiff for having not come to the court to depose. The Appellate Court without much discussion of the oral evidences and in a sketchy manner came to the conclusion that vendor of the defendants (DW-1 and DW-3) deposed that they had sold the suit land to the defendants and the two independent witness of the defendants (DW- 2 and D.W-4) deposed that the defendants were in possession of the suit property. The learned Appellate Court did not compare the sale deeds of both the parties and other material on record and proceeded on a assumption that the identity of the properties claimed by the plaintiff and the defendants were one and the same and accordingly proceeded on the basis that the defendants were claiming the property by virtue of prior sale deed dated 12.09.1991 and the plaintiff was claiming the property by virtue of later sale deed dated 31.07.1992 and the defendants had purchased from both the brothers and the plaintiff had purchased only from one brother and held that the defendants had the right to the suit property on the basis of sale deed prior in point of time and reversed the decree . 13. In the judgment passed by this Court in S.A. No. 28 of 2017 decided on 02.01.2025 this court has referring to numerous judgments as to how the first appeal is to be decided in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC particularly when the 1 st Appellate Court has to reverse a decree passed by the Trial Court. 13. In the judgment passed by this Court in S.A. No. 28 of 2017 decided on 02.01.2025 this court has referring to numerous judgments as to how the first appeal is to be decided in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC particularly when the 1 st Appellate Court has to reverse a decree passed by the Trial Court. In the judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1985 Patna 214 (Narain Singh and others Vs. Kanta Singh and others), it has been held that in case of reversal of judgement and decree , it is all the more important for the Court of First Appeal to consider the evidence and also the reasoning of the Trial Court and only thereafter to give its own reasons for not agreeing with the findings of the Trial Court. Paragraph- 18 and 19 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under: - “ 18 . It is well settled that if a finding of a fact is recorded without any discussion of the evidence, it is no judgment at all. The lower appellate Court is the final Court of fact and a very important duty is cast upon it. It is for this Court to decide final questions of fact on which the disposal of the suit might depend. On a perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it must appear that it has made an honest endeavor to make a proper appraisement of the merit of the case put forward by the parties. In case of reversal, it is all the more important for the Court of appeal below to consider the evidence and also the reasonings of the trial Court and only thereafter to give its own reasons for not agreeing with the findings of the trial Court. A perusal of the judgment must show that the lower appellate Court has applied its own mind independently to the evidences on the record. 19 . It is also well-settled that every non-consideration of the reasons given by the trial Court in a judgment of reversal is not enough for interference by the High Court sitting under S. 100 of the C.P.C. What has to be seen is whether the lower appellate Court has failed to consider the most material evidence and if it has, then in that case finding is not binding on the High Court. If the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court is sustainable from the reasonings given by the lower appellate Court, in that case finding cannot be interfered with.” 14. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court after detailed scrutiny of the materials on record, both oral and documentary, recorded a finding that two exhibits i.e. Exhibit-1 (sale deed of the plaintiff dated 31.07.1992) and Exhibit-A (sale deed of the defendants dated 12.08.1991) were in relation to different properties and the dispute was only in connection with schedule B property and in paragraph 7 ultimately held that the plaintiff has right title and interest over the suit property . However, the Appellate Court without discussing the findings of the learned Trial Court and without properly considering the materials on record and without meeting with the reasons cited by the learned Trial Court come to its findings , reversed the decree by assuming that the identity of property covered by exhibit A and exhibit 1 are one and same and referred to sale deed of the defendants which was prior in point of time and allowed the appeal and reversed the decree. This court also finds that the learned 1 st Appellate Court has discussed the evidences in a very sketchy manner and has not even looked into the findings of facts recorded by the learned Trial Court with regard to the identity and comparison of the property of exhibit 1 and exhibit A which certainly has a serious bearing with respect to the claim of the parties. 15. This court finds that the learned 1 st Appellate Court while reversing the well-considered and reasoned judgement passed by the learned Trial Court failed to meet the reasons assigned at para-7 of the Trial Court judgment wherein it has been held that the plaintiff has right , title , interest and possession over the suit property and the reasons of the learned Trial Court in turn is based on the discussions and findings recorded in paragraph 5 and 6 of the Trial Court’s judgement . The approach of the learned 1 st Appellate Court is ex-facie erroneous and contrary to the mandate of order 41 Rule 31 CPC read with the judicial pronouncements as to how the First Appellate court has to deal with the case particularly when the judgement and decree of the Trial Court is to be reversed. 16. The approach of the learned 1 st Appellate Court is ex-facie erroneous and contrary to the mandate of order 41 Rule 31 CPC read with the judicial pronouncements as to how the First Appellate court has to deal with the case particularly when the judgement and decree of the Trial Court is to be reversed. 16. This Court finds that the aforesaid approach of the learned Appellate Court was certainly not in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and therefore the substantial question of law no VI as framed vide order dated 02.11.2018 is answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Consequently, the matter is to be remanded to the learned 1 st appellate court for passing fresh judgement in accordance with law. 17. So far as other substantial questions of law are concerned, this court fully agrees with the learned counsel for the appellant that the answer to the same would essentially depend upon the finding with regard to the fact as to whether the identity of the property in Exhibit- 1 was same as exhibit-A and accordingly there is no point answering the same when the matter is being remanded to the 1 st Appellate Court. 18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the 1 st Appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned 1 st Appellate Court for fresh decision in accordance with law based on the materials already available on record. The parties to appear before the learned 1 st Appellate Court on ‘ 23 rd of April 2025 ’ by filing fresh vakalatnama and the learned 1 st Appellate Court shall decide the appeal expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of the appearance of the parties. 19. This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.