A.M. Sangappa @ Sangappa v. Sangondeppa & Anr.

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10490 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RF.A. No. 238 of 2004. Sabha for the Appellant. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Lave Kumar Sharma, V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents. The folowing order of the Court was delivered by ORDER

1Leave granted.

2This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2006 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 238 of 2004.

3Learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the impugned judgment, submitte~d that the same cannot be sustained since being a Regular First Appeal the High Court ought to have considered the evidence on record and findings recorded by the trial Judge. In other words, according to the counsel, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in the absence of appreciation of evidence and acceptability of the findings recorded by the trial Court.

4Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned decision of the High Court.

5In the light of the limited submission, we have carefully perused the reasoning of the High Court and we agree with the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant.

6In a series of decisions, this Court has h!Jhlighted how a regular first appeal is to be disposed of, particularly, in the A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPA v. SANGONDEPPA 399 &ANR. light of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. It mandates that the appellate Court has to frame points for determination, decision thereon, reasons for the decision and where the decree· appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Such recourse has not been followed by the High Court, while disposing of the regular first appeal.

7It is not in dispute that the first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth by both the sides. These principles have been reiterated in B. V. Nagesh and Another vs. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (201 O) 13 sec 530.

8By applying the above principles, we are of the view that the relevant aspects, as mentioned above, have not been noticed and adverted to by the High Court. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner which falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal.

9In the light of the above conclusion, without expressing anything on the merits of the claim of both the parties, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal for fresh disposal.

10We request the High Court to restore RFA No. 238 of 2004 (corrected as RFA Nos. 622-623 of 2007) on its file and make all endeavour for early disposal, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11The appeal is disposed of accordingly. R.P. Appeal disposed of.