Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri Gundappa, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2017 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru in R.A.No.348/2016. The original suit, O.S.No.411/2007, was filed by the plaintiffs (now respondents) seeking declaration of title and possession of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs claimed that they were absolute owners through their predecessor-in-interest, late Ainora Devaiah, and that the defendant's father, late Shivanna, was permitted to reside as a licensee. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decision and decreed the suit. The appellant-defendant contended that the First Appellate Court failed to frame proper points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, and its judgment was not a reasoned one. The High Court examined the appellate judgment and found that the First Appellate Court had framed only one point: 'Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and possession?' without breaking it into sub-issues. The High Court held that the appellate court must frame points for determination that arise from the grounds of appeal and must decide each point with reasons. The failure to do so vitiates the judgment. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment, and remanded the matter back to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a direction to frame proper points for determination and decide the appeal afresh. The parties were directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 17.04.2023.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - First Appeal - Points for Determination - Order 41 Rule 31 CPC - The First Appellate Court must frame points for determination arising from the grounds of appeal and decide each point with reasons - Failure to do so renders the judgment illegal and liable to be set aside - Held that the appellate court's judgment must be a self-contained document reflecting independent application of mind (Paras 10-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court's judgment is vitiated for non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by failing to frame proper points for determination?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 25.01.2017 passed in R.A.No.348/2016 by the VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a direction to frame proper points for determination and decide the appeal afresh. Parties to appear before the First Appellate Court on 17.04.2023.
Law Points
- Order 41 Rule 31 CPC
- Section 100 CPC
- Declaration of title
- Possession
- Points for determination
- Appellate court's duty
