Judgment in appeal

Appellate Court was bound to identify the questions for determination and then to record its findings on the same after proper reasoning

Appellate Court, in the present case, had decided the appeal on basis of report and findings of local commission appointed in pursuant to a settlement entered into between the parties

Parties had not objected to the report of local commission

Parties had resorted to an alternate mode of settlement of the dispute in the case

Appellate Court had rightly passed judgment and decree in the light of settlement and proceedings of commission carried on inpursuance of said settlement

Alternate mode of settlement of dispute was permissible under S. 89-A, C.P.C.

Controversy between the parties had been resolved effectively and no injustice had been caused to any of the party

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Revision was allowed, accordingly.

Appellate Court had failed to record reasons upon each and every issue framed by the Trial Court; to decide the controversy in the purview of evidence adduced by both the parties; and no reason had been furnished while dismissing the appeal

Appellate Court had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. while deciding the matter

No points for determination had been framed by the Appellate Court nor any findings had been recorded on the same

Matter was remanded to the Appellate Court with the direction to decide the same afresh

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Appellate Court was to assess evidence produced by the parties and examine findings recorded by the Trial Court and record its reasons for upholding or reversing the same

Appellate Court was bound to decide the dispute under O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. failing which judgment would not be according to law

Judgment of Appellate Court was to contain the points for determination of dispute and must have reasons for decision, which were lacking in the impugned judgment

Plaintiffs had prayed for cancellation of mutation but no order had been passed by the Appellate Court for cancellation of mutation or otherwise

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and matter was remanded for decision afresh according to provisions of O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C.

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Neither deposition of witnesses had been discussed nor findings on issues had been recorded in accordance with law on its true perspective

Appellate Court had recorded its findings in a cursory manner

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was non-speaking in circumstances

Appellate Court had failed to decide appeal as per provisions of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C., 1908

Documents available on record were not considered properly by the Courts below

Parties to the suit had not been afforded fair opportunity by the Trial Court

No one could be condemned unheard

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence which were set aside

Matter was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to provide full and fair opportunity to the parties to defend their claim and decide the same afresh in accordance with law

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Appellate Court had failed to frame points for determination which otherwise was departure from mandatory provisions of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C.

Trial Court framed sixteen issues and findings were also given on all the issues

Appellate Court had not given issue-wise findings while reversing findings of Trial Court

Appellate Court was competent to reverse findings of Trial Court but not without framing of proper points of determination decision thereon and reasoning thereof

Judgment of Appellate Court in absence of proper points of determination or reasons for decision would not satisfy the requirements of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C.

Neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court had discretion to pass any decision but what the law required

Appellate Court in order to reverse the findings of Trial Court was required to examine every aspect and record its reasons to justify reversal of the adjudication passed by the Court below

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was not maintainable, in circumstances

Judgment passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and case was remanded by the High Court to the said Court for fresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law

Second appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Appellate Court had failed to consider that there was no defence on record from the defendant who had failed to file written statement and proceeded ex-parte

Nothing was available on record that evidence recorded in the case was insufficient or inconclusive to justify remand of case

Case was not to be remanded in a routine, except when there was insufficient or inconclusive evidence on record

Evidence available on record was sufficient for the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment on merits

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court being contrary to law was set aside

Appeal was to be deemed to be pending before the Appellate Court who should decide the same on merits

Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Appellate Court was bound to frame points for determination in the appeal and was not required to record issue-wise findings

Appellate Court was to apply mind, formulate the points which were pivotal in the whole case and decide the appeal

If such point involved in the case was resolved which was sufficient for decision of whole appeal then finding on other points/issues was not necessary

Appellate Court had not recorded issue-wise findings but while resolving the controversy had applied its mind and resolved the pivotal question involved in the case

All the relevant points at issue had been resolved by the Appellate Court

Impugned judgment was in accordance with the provisions of O. XLI, R.31, C. P. C

No illegality had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and case was remitted to the said Court for decision afresh

Appellate Court could allow the parties to produce additional evidence if it deemed necessary

Revision was disposed of in circumstances.

Trial Court was duty bound to decide all issues or to frame points for determination in accordance with O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. and then to decide said points

When plaintiff had challenged execution of sale deed and appeared before court and stated on oath that she did not get the sale deed registered then onus was shifted on defendant for which specific issues were framed

Appellate court had committed fatal defect by ignoring mandatory provisions of procedure

While exercising jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C., court was not to interpret evidence led by parties and it was duty of appellate court to decide issues after preponderance of evidence

Judgment passed by appellate court was not sustainable under the law, same was set aside

Civil revision was allowed accordingly.

Appellate court was not required to give issue wise findings unlike Trial Court.

If a part of decree was against a party then without filing of cross objections such part of decree could not be reversed

When there were findings on any issue against any party then even without filing of cross objections or cross appeal, Appellate Court had full powers and jurisdiction under O. XLI, R. 33, C.P.C. to scrutinize such findings.

Responsibility of Court under S. 3 of Limitation Act, 1908 was to apply correct period of limitation in accordance with Limitation Act, 1908 on every lis

Without filing of objections, Appellate Court was not competent to reverse findings on issue of limitation.

Whenever appellate court is to reverse findings of court below, it has to give reasons for disagreeing with findings of lower court and also to advance reasons for its opinion in support of reversing the findings.

Plaintiffs filed present suit claiming that suit land originally belonged to their grandfather and they, being one of the legal heirs, were entitled to be declared as owners of suit land to the extent of their shares and to get their name entered in revenue record accordingly

Trial Court dismissed the suit on grounds of limitation and same being hit by proviso to S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877; whereas, appellate court decreed the same as prayed for

Validity

Order of appellate court was devoid of any reasoning and support of evidence led by parties

Appellate court had not even framed points for determination for deciding appeal and failed to examine order of Deputy Commissioner and appellate authority under Land Revenue Code, 1894 and report of the Commissioner

Appellate court, while setting aside findings of Trial Court, did not give any reasoning on the point of limitation

While reversing the findings of court below, appellate court had to give reasons for disagreeing with findings of lower court and also to advance reasons for its opinion in support of reversing the findings

Plaintiffs had not prayed for possession from defendant and only sought declaration of ownership as legal heirs and declaration as to cancellation of mutation

Appellate court failed to appreciate that predecessor of plaintiff had appeared before Revenue Authorities for effecting mutation in respect of suit property in favour of defendant

Trial court, on basis of evidence on issue regarding possession of suit property and following mandatory proviso to S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, had rightly held the suit not maintainable

Appellate court's judgment was silent on issue of maintainability of suit with reference to S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

High Court, setting aside judgment and decree of appellate court, restored that of trial court

Revision petition was allowed in circumstances.

Appeal was transferred to the Appellate Court from another court but no notice was issued to the parties or their counsel before hearing the same

Court was bound to afford an appropriate opportunity to the parties to proceed their case on merits

Appellate Court had failed to comply with the essential requirements while fixing date of hearing of appeal at its own accord

Impugned judgment was delivered in absence of counsel for the applicant after hearing arguments of the opposite party

Applicant had been condemned unheard which was against right of fair trial

Opportunity of hearing was mandatory and essential for dispensation of justice on merits

Appellate Court had decided the appeal by passing a short judgment without touching the merits and demerits of the same

Appellate Court had not discussed each issue separately while adjudging the material available on record

Judgment pronounced must discuss and cover all substantial points involved in the case while examining evidence adduced by the parties

Compliance of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. was mandatory in nature

Appellate Court could not evade these provisions by taking divergent view on erroneous surmises and conjectural presumptions

Appellate Court had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. while remanding the matter

Legal objections or legal issues pertaining to the maintainability of suit could be discussed together and such joint discussion would not defeat the mandatory provisions of O. XX, R. 5 & O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C.

Appellate Court had failed to give reasons upon each and every issue separately supported by evidence

Sufficient evidence was available on record to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment and finally determine the appeal on merits

Appellate Court was bound to decide all the issues separately while discussing evidence

No justification existed for remand of case to the Trial Court to decide a question/issue which was purely a question of law

Appellate Court should have decided the question of law involved in an appeal by hearing the arguments of the parties and examining relevant provisions of law

Controversy between the parties had not been decided in the case

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside

Case was remanded to the Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh on merits by discussing all the issues after affording ample opportunity to the parties to argue their case

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Provisions of O.XLI, Rr.30 & 31, C.P.C. were mandatory in nature and its deviation would be violation of law.

Defendants could not agitate new plea either before the Appellate Court or before the High Court to defeat the verdict of Trial Court

Appellate Court was bound to set out the points for determination and decide the appeal with specific reasons in view of said points after due consideration of evidence and documents produced by the parties

Provisions of O.XLI, Rr.30 & 31, C.P.C. were mandatory in nature and its deviation would be utter violation of law

Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties

Short order passed by the Appellate Court without setting the points for determination and discussing merits in view of the evidence was devoid of any legal substance and the same was not sustainable under the law

Both the parties had adduced their evidence and had produced all the relevant documents

Material illegality had been committed by the Appellate Court while passing the impugned short order which being devoid of legal substance was set aside by High Court

Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was maintained to the extent of restoration of possession only, while findings of Trial Court to the extent of mesne profits and compensation under S.35-A, C.P.C. were set aside

Revision was disposed of accordingly.

Appellate Court was not required to deal with each of the issues and resolve the same separately in the light of evidence available on record unless same had caused any serious violation of law or resulting in miscarriage of justice to any of the parties to the suit.

Fresh points for determination were framed by the Appellate Court without declaring that issues framed by the Trial Court were not proper

Effect

Appellate Court was not supposed to act as a court of original jurisdiction

Appellate Court was bound to give reasons on each and every issue raised and decided by the Trial Court

Appeal was remanded to the Appellate Court for decision afresh after notice to the parties

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Appellate court was not required to give issue-wise findings like the Trial Court.

Where Appellate Court overlooked, ignored or failed to consider evidence on record or judgment of appellate court lacked application of mind, it would amount to failure to comply provisions of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C.

Recitals of judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court must have shown that it has made sincere endeavour to make proper appraisement of merits of case put forward by parties, which was lacking in judgment of lower appellate court

Appellate Court was bound and obliged to render its independent findings on each point of determination

Appellate Court, in the present case, had ignored said mandate of law, thus impugned judgment was found not qualified to be called "judgment" in eye of aw

Impugned judgment could be termed as cursory judgment for mainly depending upon surmises, although sufficient material in shape of evidence was available before appellate court.

Appellate Court below had passed judgment and decree in an ambiguous manner without adopting the requirements of O. XLI, C.P.C. and without discussing any issue or setting aside any findings

When law had prescribed that a thing should be done in a particular manner then same must be done in the said particular manner or should not be done at all

Appellate Court should have recorded issue-wise findings but said procedure had not been complied with

Impugned judgment and decree could not be termed to have been passed while considering the law and procedure on the subject

Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside with a direction to pass a valid judgment

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that he had obtained possession of suit property after paying substantial part of consideration, but defendant later unlawfully cancelled general power of attorney and illegally took back possession of suit property from tenant of plaintiff and refused to perform his part of sale contract

Both trial court and appellate court decreed the suit on admission of defendant as to execution of sale agreement

Validity

Defendant failed to point out any instance of misreading or non-reading of evidence to show that courts below had come to wrong conclusion

Defendant had admitted execution of contract of sale with plaintiff and handing over possession of suit property on realization of substantial amount and transfer of loan in favour of plaintiff

As suit property was rented out by plaintiff and plaintiff had been paying loan of House Building Finance Corporation, thus there was no justification for defendant to unilaterally cancel power of attorney without notice to plaintiff and fraudulently obtain possession by inducing tenant of respondent

Defendant had not established his defence plea through cogent evidence

Plaintiff, on the other hand, had established by cogent evidence execution of sale agreement and payment of consideration

Power of attorney was not without consideration

Defendant had not made any public notice in newspapers while revoking power of attorney

Defendant failed to prove rescission of sale agreement

Defendant's witnesses were chance witnesses

Tenant of suit property, as witness of defendant, had admitted that he was put in possession of premises by plaintiff

Persons who appeared as witness before Registrar for registration of revocation of power of attorney had not come in witness box

Contents of cancellation deed did not disclose reasons for cancelling power of attorney

Cancellation deed was contrary to terms of power of attorney, which provided that cancellation of same was to be proceeded with no objection certificate from House Building Finance Corporation

Cancellation of power of attorney after receiving entire consideration for executing same was not lawful

Appellate court, while marshalling evidence, had examined all issues framed by trial court and affirmed findings of trial court, which was sufficient compliance of provisions of O. XLI, R. 31 C.P.C.

High Court observed that appellate court was not always required to discuss each issue, unless same was reversed by first appellate court

Defendant had lingered on the matter for last twenty years

Revision petition was dismissed with cost in circumstances.

Under O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C. appellate court was under legal obligation to render its findings after determination of important points on each and every issue involved in the suit.

Object of O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C. was to provide a pavement to the Appellate Court for writing a good, characteristic and self-explanatory judgment.

Said court was required to deal with each and every aspect of the case while hearing appeal by re-opening the entire controversy

Appellate Court was bound to go through the entire evidence recorded by the Trial Court and discuss threadbare for its satisfaction

Appellate Court had decided the appeal in limine without calling the record of the present case

Appellate Court was under legal obligation to decide the dispute in the manner prescribed under O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C. which was mandatory provision of law otherwise judgment would not be in accordance with law

Appellate Court was to decide finally all the questions of facts and law involved in the case as judgment of Trial Court would disappear and merge in the judgment of said court and same would only remain in existence

Judgment of Appellate Court should contain the points for determination of dispute and same should have reasons for decision which were lacking in the impugned judgment

Impugned judgment was set aside and case was remanded to the Appellate Court for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and case was remanded for issue-wise decision afresh within a specified period

Second appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Plaintiff impugned judgment of Appellate Court on the ground that no "points of determination" were framed by Appellate Court and therefore it had not complied with the provisions of O. XLI, R. 31 of the C.P.C.

Validity

Debate as to whether at the time of passing judgment, the Appellate Court ought to have framed points for determination appeared to be immaterial when all material questions as raised were answered by the Appellate Court even though they might not have been framed point by point in numerical order

Framing of points of determination in fact and practically was the same as the issues framed by Trial Court and incorporated in the judgment of Appellate Court

Three ingredients of O. XLI, R.31, C.P.C. stood complied with

Contention that points for determination had not been formulated in a sequential manner appeared to have lost force when all material questions had been answered and no separate findings were required as material points in controversy were addressed

No illegality in orders of courts below existed

Revision was dismissed.

Judgment of Appellate Court should be in writing and should state points for determination, the decision thereon, reasons for such decision, and where the decree appealed from was reversed or varied, the relief which the appellant was entitled to

Judgment of Appellate Court at the time it was pronounced, should be signed and dated by the judge or by judges concurring therein

Mandatory upon the Appellate Court to give its findings on points of determination as it was a duty entrusted upon it by the Legislature

Appellate Court was to decide finally all questions of fact on which disposal of a suit might depend upon and should not easily agree with the Trial Court.

Appellate Court would not be bound in such case to give findings issue-wise, rather would be required to formulate relevant points for determination.

Contention of the defendant was that the Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and decreed the suit without discussing evidence or giving reasons

Validity

Findings of the Appellate Court were spread out on just one page on ten issues and did not touch. merits of the case and was against the spirit of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C.

Not even a single line had been referred and discussed from the evidence and it was incumbent upon the Appellate Court to have met the reasoning of the Trial Court

Judgment of the Appellate Court was not a judgment in its true sense and the Appellate Court should have applied O. XLI, R. 31 and 33 of the C.P.C.

High Court set aside impugned judgment of Appellate Court and remanded the case to the Appellate Court for decision afresh

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Contention that the Appellate Court was bound to record its findings on each and every issue separately was not tenable under the law because the discussion of every issue was necessary but it was not necessary for the Appellate Court to record the findings on each and every issue separately, like the Trial Court when the detailed findings of the Trial Court on each issue were available on the record.

Judgment which was not "proper judgment", identified.