Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-8-2000 passed in Title Appeal No. 111 of 1989 by 1st Additional District Judge, Nalanda, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10-8-1989 passed by Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda, being Eviction Suit No. 21 of 1988.

3. There is no dispute that the suit property originally belonged to Jamuna Sao, who had sold the same by registered sale deed dated 31-3-1072 to Janki Devi. However, the original plaintiff claimed title over the suit property on the basis of her purchase from the heirs of Janki Devi after her death by registered sale deed dated 30th March, 1988. This claim of the original plaintiff had been resisted by the original defendant Ram Patiya Devi on the ground that she was the real owner of the suit property, as she had purchased the suit property in the Benami name of Janki Devi. The defendant had also claimed to have perfected her title by remaining in adverse possession over the suit property for the statutory period. Initially, the suit was filed as eviction suit claiming eviction of the original defendant as well as the arrears of rent. However, subsequently the plaint was amended and the reliefs for declaration of title over the suit property and recovery of possession have been incorporated in the plaint.

4. In view of the admitted position that the suit property stood in the name of Janki Devi and from whose heirs the original plaintiff had claimed her title by purchase, the crucial question to be determined before the courts below was the plea of Benami purchase as asserted by the original defendant and further the plea of perfecting her title by adverse possession by the original defendant. On the first issue regarding the defence of Benami, both the courts have correctly come to the conclusion that the said defence was barred by the provision of section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and decided that issue against the defendant. However, the trial court decided the issue of adverse possession in favour of the defendant and accordingly dismissed the suit.

5. In appeal the appellate court reconsidered the evidence, pleadings and submissions of the parties and has concurred with the findings of the trial court on the issue of defence of Benami. However, the finding on the issue of adverse possession was not approved by the appellate court which held that the defendant could not be permitted to claim her title as well as adverse possession in the same breath and consequently decided the issue of adverse possession against the defendant holding that the ingredients required for accepting the plea of adverse possession could not be established.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellate court was mandatorily required to consider the reasons assigned by the trial court before reversing its finding and the judgment of the appellate court is vitiated for non-consideration of reasonings. It has further been submitted that the appellate court like the trial court should have considered each and every issue again on the basis of evidence available on the record and come to its own finding.

7. From the perusal of the judgment of the appellate court it appears that it has considered the pleadings, submissions and evidence as led by the parties and it has also considered the different issues raised by the trial court and has also taken notice of the findings given by the trial court. Thereafter, the appellate court had proceeded to formulate the points for determination in appeal in view of the rival contentions of the parties in accordance with Order 41 Rule 31` C.P.C. It is not required by law that the appellate court should consider each and every issue again like the trial court and record its own independent finding. The distinction is explicit by the