IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.603 of 2010 Bibi Halima Versus Gopalji Prasad & Ors. ---------------------------------- 6 5-12-2011 Heard Mr. Sheo Nandan Roy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Bindhachal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The plaintiff has claimed title and possession over the suit land on the basis of purchase by sale deed dated 2-8-1976 from Mirza Basirul Haque . The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff by putting forward rival claim on the suit land on the basis of purchase from Bibi Hazra asserting that Bibi Hazara was the daughter of Jahirul Haque and therefore she got the suit land by inheritance as well as by oral gift. Both the courts below after considering the evidence, pleadings and submission of the parties, have reached to the concurrent findings of fact that Bibi Hazara was not the daughter of Jahirul Haque as asserted by the defendant and the oral Hibba has also not been established. It has also been found that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his title and possession over the suit land. The learned senior counsel has mainly submitted that the judgment of the appellate court below cannot be sustained in view of the non-compliance of the provision contained in Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. whereby a duty has been cast upon the appellate court to formulate the points for determination in the judgment. It has been urged by the learned senior counsel that the 2 appellate court has failed to formulate the points for determination and as such the judgment is vitiated. It has further been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the courts below have approached the whole case in a negative manner inasmuch as they have failed to determine the claim of the plaintiff even when the defendant has failed to establish her case. After perusal of the judgments of both the courts below and considering the submissions of the learned senior counsels , it appears that the appellate court while passing the judgment in affirmance was still conscious of his duty to formulate the points and in fact, in paragraph no.4 of the judgment such points for determination have been mentioned. Further, both the courts below have considered the case of the plaintiff in view of the evidence on record and have come to record the findings in favour of the plaintiff’s title and possession over the suit land. The dispute between the parties have been now settled by the concurrent findings of fact. There does not appear to be any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)