The first appellate court is mandatorily required to frame points for determination and record reasoned findings thereon. Failure to adhere to this procedural mandate constitutes a fundamental illegality, requiring the appellate decision to be set aside for fresh adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Sonbhadra, in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2023, Balvir Kohli Vs. Smt. Indra Bagdiya and others, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has allowed Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2023, Balvir Kohli Vs. Smt. Indra Bagdiya and others, along with connected Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2023, Jitendra Bahadur Singh alias Ramanand Singh and others Vs. Smt. Indra Bagdiya and others.

3. First Appeal From Order No. 1127 of 2026 (Indra Bagdiya Versus Balvir Kohli and others) and First Appeal From Order No. 1128 of 2026 ( Indra Bagdiya Versus Vijendra Bahadur Singh @ Ramanand Singh and others ) have arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Sonbhadra, in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2023, Balvir Kohli Vs. Smt. Indra Bagdiya and others, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has allowed Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2023, Balvir Kohli Vs. Smt. Indra Bagdiya and others, along with connected Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2023, Jitendra Bahadur Singh alias Ramanand Singh and others Vs. Smt. Indra Bagdiya and others, arising out of Original Suit No. 264 of 2001 (Indra Bagdiya Versus Balvir Kohli and others).

4. Hence, both these appeals are hereby consolidated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and are being decided by this common judgment, which reads as follows:

5. The plaintiff/appellant has filed a Original Suit No. 264 of 2001 (Indra Bagdiya Versus Balvir Kohli and others) before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Robertsganj, Distrtict Sonbhadra for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained to interfere into the peaceful possession or in construction raised by the plaintiff. The suit was filed on 11.11.2001.

6. Learned trial court has decided the said original suit with a detailed judgment after appreciation of all the facts, circumstances and evidences produced by the parties on 20.04.2023. The issue no. 1 which has been framed by the learned trial court is that whether the property in dispute which is shown in the map attached with the plaint as alphabet is क, ख, ग, घ the ownership and possession of the appellant/plaintiff.

7. The said issue has been decided with great care, caution, and proper appreciation of the evidence and the entire facts of the case, and it has been finally held that the map of the property in question is attached with the plaint, the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the said property, and is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.

8. Defendant No. 1, Balvir Kohli, preferred Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2023, and Defendant No. 2, Vijendra Bahadur Singh, preferred Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2023 against the said judgment and order dated 20.04.2023. Both the civil appeals were clubbed together and decided by a common judgment and order dated 05.02.2026, which is under challenge before this Court.

9. At the outset, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the first appellate court remanded the matter without framing any specific points for determination by the learned trial court. He has further submitted that the procedure prescribed under Order XLI Rules 30 and 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) has not been followed by the first appell