The first appellate court must provide points for determination and adequate reasoning when reversing a trial court's decree, as per Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed against Judgement dated 30^th June, 2016 and decree sealed & signed on 12^th of July, 2016 passed by Learned District Judge-II, Giridih in Title Appeal No. 48 of 2008 whereby and where under he has allowed Title Appeal No. 48 of 2008 and has set aside Judgment dated 30^th August, 2008 and decree sealed & signed on 18^th September, 2008 passed by Learned Additional Munsif-I, Giridih in Title Suit No. 163 of 1991 whereby and whereunder he had decreed Title Suit No. 163 of 1991 in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 16^th October, 2019 on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the learned appellate court below has decided the appeal without expression any opinion in proper sense and whether in absence of any analysis and reason, the impugned judgment renders it indefeasible?”

Argument of the appellants

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Title Suit No. 163 of 1991 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title of the plaintiffs over Schedule ‘B’ land and confirmation of their possession over the said property (Except Schedule ‘C’ lands) and for recovery of possession of Schedule ‘C’ lands from the defendants.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that the defendants had contested the suit and on the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned trial court: -

I. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?

II. Whether the plaintiffs have got a valid cause of action for the suit?

III. Whether the suit is barred by limitation and adverse possession?

IV. Whether the suit is also barred by the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?

V. Whether there was an oral agreement between plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 Dhena Manjhi for sale of Schedule C land for Rs.2,000/- in the month of October, 1988 and in furtherance thereof, defendant no. 5 was given possession of the same and he started making construction thereon?

VI. Whether it is a fact that Chudka Manjhi, son of recorded raiyat Mohan Manjhi, surrendered eastern half of plot nos. 179 and 180 under khata no. 17 of suit village Jodhpur, to the then landlord Jasmat Manjhi on 13.02.1946 and the landlord came in possession of the same?

VII. Whether it is a fact that the said landlord Jasmat Manjhi on 15.03.1947 orally settled in permanent raiyati right the aforesaid surrendered lands measuring 1.24½ acre and 0.29½ acre under plots no. 179 and 180 respectively with defendant no. 5 Dhena Manjhi by delivery of possession and also granted a Hukumnama to this effect?

VIII. Whether said Dhena Manjhi has been coming in peaceful and un—interrupted possession of the aforesaid settled lands along with his sons i.e. defendants No. 1 to 4?

IX. Whether plaintiffs have got any right, title and interest in respect of the suit lands?

X. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint?

XI. What relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to?

5. He submitted that the suit was ultimately decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The right and title of the plaintiffs over Schedule ‘B’ lands was declared and their possession over the same was also confirmed. So far as the Schedule ‘C’ lands is concerned, defendants were directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of Schedule ‘C’ lands after demolishing the construction standing over the same within 60 days failing which liberty was given to the plaintiffs to execute the decree through the process of law.

6. The learned counsel submitted that an appeal was filed by the defendants bearing Title Appeal No. 48 of 2008. He further submitted that the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC has not been followed while allowing the appeal and reversing the decree of the trial court. The learned counsel also submitted that no point of determination was framed and the major part of the judgment by the first appellate court refers to submiss