Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral agricultural land bearing Gut No.1220 at village Ghosarwad. The original plaintiffs, respondent nos.1 and 2, claimed that the suit land originally belonged to one Kallappa, who died leaving behind plaintiffs and other defendants. Defendant no.2 executed a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1998 in respect of 1H 60R of the suit land in favour of defendant no.8, the appellant before the High Court. The plaintiffs contended that the sale was without legal necessity and not binding on their rights, and that an earlier decree in Regular Civil Suit No.43/1997 was collusive. Defendant no.8 pleaded that the sale was for legal necessity due to financial duress, including the need to refund amounts to Ramgonda Patil and others and to meet family expenses. The Trial Court framed a specific issue on legal necessity and, after considering evidence, decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiffs entitled to a 1/6th share and holding the sale deed invalid to the extent of the plaintiffs' share. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Trial Court's decree. The appellant then filed a Second Appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, while issuing notice for final disposal, framed a substantial question of law whether the lower Appellate Court's findings were in ignorance of vital issues framed and decided by the Trial Court, thereby vitiating the judgment and calling for remand. The appellant argued that the First Appellate Court failed to frame necessary points for consideration and did not follow the procedure under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, failing to discuss the evidence on legal necessity and simply recording concurrence without independent application of mind. The respondents contended that the Trial Court had considered the evidence and recorded negative findings, and that the Appellate Court had applied its mind in paragraph no.8 of its judgment. The High Court examined the judgments of both lower courts and observed that the Appellate Court had merely recorded concurrence in a cryptic manner without delving into the evidence on legal necessity. It noted that the Trial Court had discarded the evidence for want of specific pleading regarding loans from Co-operative Societies, and the Appellate Court failed to discuss the admissibility or sufficiency of the evidence tendered by the appellant. Relying on Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by Lrs. and Madhukar and Others Vs. Sangram and Others, the High Court held that the First Appellate Court, being the last fact-finding court, must reflect conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all issues. The Appellate Court's failure to frame points for determination and to give its own reasons for concurrence caused serious prejudice to the appellant. Accordingly, the High Court answered the substantial question of law in the affirmative, partly allowed the Second Appeal, quashed the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Jaysingpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.14/2009, and remanded the matter to the Appellate Court to formulate points for determination in tune with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and to hear and decide the appeal on merits, preferably within six months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - First Appeal - Order 41 Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Duty to Frame Points for Determination and Give Reasons - The first appellate court, being the last fact-finding court, is required to state points for determination, decision, and reasons under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC; failure to independently reappreciate evidence and merely concur with trial court without assigning reasons vitiates the appellate judgment. The High Court held that the appellate court's judgment lacked conscious application of mind and caused serious prejudice, hence quashed the judgment and remanded the matter for fresh decision in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. (Paras 12-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether findings recorded by lower Appellate Court are in ignorance of vital issues framed and decided by the Trial Court, which vitiate the judgment and call for remand of matter?
Final Decision
Second Appeal Partly Allowed. The judgment and decree dated 26.11.2014 passed by District Judge, Jaysingpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.14/2009 is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Court is directed to formulate point for determination in tune with provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure, thereafter hear and decide the Appeal on its own merits, expeditiously and preferably within six months. Parties to cooperate.
Law Points
- First Appellate Court is the last fact-finding court and must independently reappreciate evidence
- Order 41 Rule 31 CPC mandates framing of points for determination
- decision and reasons
- Mere concurrence with Trial Court findings without assigning reasons vitiates appellate judgment
- Non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC warrants remand
- Substantial question of law answered in affirmative
