Bombay High Court Allows Letters Patent Appeal in Partition Suit Due to Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Appellate Court's Judgment Set Aside for Failure to Frame Points for Determination and Provide Reasons.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 91
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal arising from a judgment dated 2nd February 1988 passed in First Appeal No.4 of 1978 by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for partition claiming a 1/7th share in the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court (Single Judge) set aside the trial court's judgment and decree dated 29.4.1977 in Special Civil Suit No.226 of 1973, ordered a preliminary decree for partition, declared shares, and directed rendition of accounts from 5.6.1986 until the plaintiff gets possession. The appellants challenged this judgment on various grounds. However, the Division Bench found it necessary to address only one ground: non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Division Bench noted that the appellate court's judgment did not frame any points for determination, nor did it discuss the evidence or provide reasons for its conclusions. The judgment merely stated the conclusion without any analysis. The Division Bench held that Order 41 Rule 31 is mandatory and requires the appellate court to frame points for determination, decide each point, and give reasons. Since the impugned judgment failed to comply, it was set aside. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear before the Single Judge on a specified date. No order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Appellate Judgment - Order 41 Rule 31 CPC - Mandatory Requirements - The appellate court must frame points for determination, decide each point, and give reasons for its decision. Failure to do so renders the judgment unsustainable. The impugned judgment did not frame any points for determination and lacked reasons, thus it was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal. (Paras 3-7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellate court's judgment complied with the mandatory requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment dated 2.2.1988 set aside. Matter remanded to learned Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Parties to appear before Single Judge on 17.7.2006. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is mandatory
  • appellate judgment must contain points for determination
  • decision on each point
  • and reasons
  • non-compliance vitiates the judgment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (06) 93

Letters Patent Appeal No. 47 of 1989

2006-06-28

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, S.R. Dongaonkar

Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar for Appellants, Mr. Masood Shareef for Respondent

Khatunbi wd/o Mohammad Sayeed and others

Smt. Aminabai w/o Mohammad Sabir

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against appellate judgment in partition suit

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge which had ordered partition and rendition of accounts

Filing Reason

Non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by the appellate court

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed suit (29.4.1977); Single Judge allowed appeal and ordered partition (2.2.1988)

Issues

Whether the appellate court's judgment complied with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the impugned judgment did not frame points for determination and lacked reasons, violating mandatory provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is mandatory and requires the appellate court to frame points for determination, decide each point, and give reasons for its decision. Non-compliance renders the judgment unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

Though the impugned judgment and decree is sought to be challenged on various grounds, it is not necessary to deal with all those grounds and suffice to refer to only one ground which relates to noncompliance of mandatory provision of law comprised under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellate court while passing the impugned judgment. The appellate court while passing the impugned judgment has not framed any points for determination, nor has it discussed the evidence on record, nor has it assigned any reasons for the conclusions arrived at. The judgment merely states the conclusion without any analysis. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is mandatory and requires the appellate court to frame points for determination, decide each point, and give reasons. Since the impugned judgment failed to comply, it is set aside.

Procedural History

Trial Court dismissed Special Civil Suit No.226 of 1973 on 29.4.1977. Plaintiff appealed in First Appeal No.4 of 1978, which was allowed by Single Judge on 2.2.1988 ordering partition. Appellants filed Letters Patent Appeal No.47 of 1989 against that judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 31
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses State's Petition Challenging KSAT Order in Service Matter — State Cannot Assail Its Own Tribunal's Order Without Just Cause. The Court held that a writ petition by the State against its own Administrative Tribunal ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Letters Patent Appeal in Partition Suit Due to Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Appellate Court's Judgment Set Aside for Failure to Frame Points for Determination and Provide Reasons.