ORDER :

1. The present Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Viramgam in Regular Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2018 on 24.2.2021 whereby, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) was pleased to confirm the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2017 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandal in Regular Civil Suit No. 250 of 2016 (Old Regular Civil Suit No. 317 of 2015).

2. The appellant herein is the original defendant and the respondent- original plaintiff had filed a suit for property situated in the outskirt of Mouje Vitthalpur, Taluka Mandal bearing Block/Survey No. 147 paiki in revenue account No. 212 and admeasuring 0-87-01 (H.are.sq.m.) [hereinafter referred to as the “disputed suit property”] mainly stating that the agricultural property is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and he had purchased the said property by a registered sale-deed from the original owners Chhaganbhai Makwana, Dhudabhai and Arjanbhai which was registered before the Sub Registrar Viramgam at S. No. 290. That, the appellant-original defendant was trying to restrain the respondent-original plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The learned trial Court after the summons of the suit was duly served and the original defendant appeared, framed the issues and recorded the entire evidence of both the parties and after hearing the submissions of the learned advocates for both the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to partly allow the suit of the plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2017. That, the defendant being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2018 and after hearing the learned advocate for both the parties, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam was pleased to reject the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandal vide order dated 24.2.2021. Hence, the present Second Appeal.

3. The appellant in the appeal memo has mainly contended that the impugned order is against the settled position of law and the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record. That, the dispute is with regard to the location of the land and the learned Courts below have erred while passing the impugned judgment and orders. The appellant has filed the present appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law:

“(a) Whether the learned First Appellant Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment, order and decree contrary to the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(b) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is lawful owner and occupant of the suit land as per DLR map Exh.28?

(c) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant obstructed him while he was erecting the wire fencing?

(d) Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties.

(e) Whether the learned First Appellate Court has erred in not framing the points for determination as mandatory under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 (b) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(f) Whether the learned First Appellate Court has erred in not framing the points for determination as mandatory under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(g) Whether the learned Court has considered the fact that for the same survey number DLR Map filed by both the parties are different?”

4. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has mainly contended that the learned trial Court and First Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence and the main dispute between the parties is regarding the location of the land. As per the say of the plaintiff the property of the original defendant is situated on the east side of Viramgam-Bahucharaji Road which fact has been failed to be