Karnataka High Court
Mallappa Ramappa Naik vs Ittappa Kamappa Banti @ Heggani on 14 August, 2020
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH OF AUGUST 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
R.S.A.NO.1811 OF 2005 (DEC & INJ)
BETWEEN
1. SRI. MALLAPPA RAMAPPA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KEMMANKOL,
TAL: GOKAK - 591307,
DIST: BELGAUM
2. SRI. SATTEPPA RAMAPPA NAIK
AGED ABOUT: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KEMMANKOL,
TAL: GOKAK - 591307,
DIST: BELGAUM
3. SRI.YALLAPPA BHIMAPPA NAIK
AGED ABOUT: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KEMMANKOL,
TAL: GOKAK - 591307,
DIST: BELGAUM.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK R KALYANASHETTY, ADV.,)
AND
1. SHRI.ITTAPPA KAMAPPA
BANTI @ HEGGANI
AGED ABOUT: 53 YEARS,
2
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KEMMANKOL,
TAL: GOKAK - 591307,
DIST: BELGAUM
2. SHRI. LAXMAN KAMAPPA
BANTI @ HEGGANI
AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KEMMANKOL,
TAL: GOKAK - 591307,
DIST: BELGAUM
3. SHRI.SIDDAPPA KAMAPPA
BANTI @ HEGGANI
AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KEMMANKOL,
TAL: GOKAK - 591307,
DIST: BELGAUM.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE APPEARED THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE)
THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED: 30.07.2005 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.71/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.), GOKAK, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED: 30.08.2000 PASSED
IN OS.NO.187/1985 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) & JMFC, GOKAK.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed by the appellants, who are defendants 1 to 3 before the Trial Court, questioning the judgment passed in O.S.No.187/1985 dated 30.08.2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Gokak (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court" for short), which was confirmed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Gokak (hereinafter referred to as the "First Appellate Court" for short) in Regular Appeal No.71/2000 dated 30.07.2005.
2. Germane facts for disposal of this appeal are as under:
The plaintiff contended that Survey No.116 and Block No.384/1 and 384/2 measuring 24 acres 7 guntas (hereinafter referred to as "suit property" for short) was granted to the father of the plaintiffs as Inam as per the order dated 30.04.1996 by the Assistant Commissioner Bailhongal and was vested in the Government after the promulgation of Inam Abolition. After the death of the father of plaintiffs on 14.05.1968, the plaintiffs have been 4 in possession of the suit property as his only legal heirs. It is their further contention that the defendants tried to interfere with the possession suit property claiming that the same was granted to the father of third defendant. Plaintiffs further contended that the suit property was granted to the plaintiffs' father in the year 1966 and the alleged grant of the suit land in favour of the father of the third defendant on 06.07.1978 is null and void. Therefore, they filed suit initially for the relief of injunction and later on it was amended twice and declaratory relief was sought.
On issuance of the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. Based on the rival pleadings, trial Court initially raised following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit lands?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove obstruction to their possession and enjoyment of suit lands by defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of injunction prayed for by them?5
4. To what order and decree?
Later on the Trail Court also raised the following additional issues vide additional issue no.1 to 4.
1. Do plaintiffs prove that suit land was regranted in the name of their father exclusively under Order No.WRG IV 2129 dated 30-04-1966 of Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal? If so, the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal had jurisdiction to regrant the suit land in favour of the father of defendant No.3 on 6-7-78?
2. Whether suit claim declaratory relief is barred by limitation as claimed in additional written statement of defendant No.1 and 2?
3. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
4. Whether the regrant order made in favour of father of defendant No.3 by Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal is null and void?
After hearing the parties, Trial Court dismissed the suit on 24.09.1992. Against an appeal was filed by plaintiffs in R.A.No.40/1992 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Gokak.
6
After hearing parties and perusal of records, First Appellate Court, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and remanded suit with a direction to afford opportunity to both parties to contest additional issue No.4 and dispose of the suit in accordance with law.
On remand, Trial court raised one more issue as additional issue No.5 as under:
"Whether the defendants prove that they are exclusive owners and in possession of suit lands by virtue of the grant under WTN/PK/CR No.53/1995- 96 dated: 24-7-1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal?"
Further trial was held by affording opportunities to the parties to contest on additional issue No.4 and 5 and decreed the suit by its judgment dated 30.08.2000.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment Defendants 1 to 3, filed a regular appeal on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gokak in R.A.No.71/2000.
7
First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties dismissed the said appeal on 30.05.2005, confirming the decree passed by Trial Court dated 30.08.2000.
3. Those judgments are under challenge in this second appeal. This court admitted the appeals with following substantial question of law.
"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below by answering only additional issue Nos.4 and 5, without considering the other issues on merit, is perverse and arbitrary, being contrary to the judgment passed in R.A.No.40/92 dated 28.06.1994, the order of remand passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Gokak?"
4. Sri. Ashok R Kalyanashetty, the learned counsel for appellants while assailing with the impugned judgments has pointed out that after First Appellate Court remanded the suit by setting aside the decree of dismissal, the Trial Court ought to have considered the suit afresh in accordance with law. But Trial Court has proceeded to answer only additional issue Nos. 4 and 5 and passed 8 judgment on 30/8/2000 thereby committed a gross error which was not considered by the First Appellate Court though argued. Thus, both the judgments are not the judgments in the eye of law.
5. He also submits that once the matter is remanded for disposal afresh, the Trial Court was bound to answer all the issues as is contemplated under Order XIV and Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC" for short). Therefore, sought for allowing the second appeal and sought for remand of suit.
6. Learned counsel for respondents Sri. P. V. Gunjal, did not dispute legal position that Trial Court was bound to answer all issues after remand of suit by the Appellate Court.
7. However, his apprehension is that since lis is of the year 1985, and remanding the suit by this court again would result in further delay in disposal of the lis. As such, 9 he submits that in the inevitable event of remand of suit, direction for disposal suit within a definite time frame may be issued. He also sought a direction to parties to co- operate for the early disposal of the suit.
8. Sri. Ashok R Kalyanshetty replied that the defendants are always ready and willing to co-operate with the Trial Court for disposal of the matter.
9. In view of the above factual position, legal requirement and the submissions made on behalf parties, the substantial question raised in this appeal is answered in the affirmative for the following:
REASONS
10. It is found from records that initially suit came to be dismissed by judgment dated 24.09.1992. Against which the plaintiffs preferred appeal in R.A.No.40/1992. First Appellate Court after considering the rival contentions of the parties allowed the First Appeal and remanded the suit for fresh disposal. Operative portion of the said order is 10 culled out hereunder for ready reference which reads as follows:
"26. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. 187/1985 on 24.09.1992 are hereby set aside and the suit is remanded back to the trial court with a direction to give opportunity to both the parties to dispose of the suit in accordance with law.
Under the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs of this appeal. Admissible Court fee is ordered to be refunded.
The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 18.07.1994 without expecting further notice. The Trial Court is further directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the above said date positively."
11. As seen above, the order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court was not a limited remand in respect of additional issue No.4 alone, but it was remand in toto. It is needless to emphasise that judgment dated 24.09.1992 passed by trial court was set-aside by First Appellate Court.
11
12. After the remand, Trial Court raised one more issue viz., Additional Issue No.5. Heard parties only on Additional Issue No. 4 and 5, and passed the judgment on 30.08.2000. In the said judgment, learned Trial Court has only answered additional issue Nos.4 and 5 alone. Other issues were which were already there on record are not answered.
13. Order XX Rule 5 CPC contemplates a mandatory duty on Trial Court to answer all issues framed in a suit. Non answering of all issues results in vitiating the entire judgment subject to exception carved out in Order XIV Rule 2 CPC.
14. The term "issue" in a civil case means a disputed question relating to rival contentions in a suit. It is the focal point of disagreement, argument or decision. Needless to emphasise that framing of appropriate issue/s serves the laudable object of narrowing the conflict in a succinct manner. Scheme of Civil Procedure Code, contemplates that the court must thereafter proceed with 12 the trial based on the issues and pronounce its judgment by answering all the issues.
15. For ready reference, provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5 are culled out hereunder:
ORDER XIV Rule 2:
Rule 2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.- (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.
(2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to-
(a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or
(b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, 13 and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.
ORDER XX RULE 5 OF CPC:
"5. Court to state its decision on each issue.- In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit."
16. The word judgment is defined in Section 2(9) of the CPC. The same is culled out hereunder for ready reference.
Section. 2(9):a "judgment" to mean the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order.
17. Further, what constitutes a judgment is no longer res integra. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.V. Rami Reddi v. Prema, reported in AIR 2008 Supreme 14 Court 1534. The relevant portion of the said judgment is culled out hereunder:
9. The ultimate question is whether in the instant case the judgment has been validly delivered? If it is a mere procedural irregularity and the Judge concerned had not signed the judgment, then the judgment thus rendered cannot be invalidated. Order XX Rule 1 CPC postulates that after the case has been heard, the court hearing the same shall pronounce the judgment in open court by dictation to the shorthand writer, wherever it is permissible. It bears the date on which it is pronounced.
The date of the judgment is never altered by the date on which the signature has been put subsequently. The mere fact that a major portion has been dictated by the learned Judge in the judgment already dictated, will not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the judgment had been delivered.
10. In Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh Vs. Harendra Kumar Banerjee and Anr. (AIR 1969 SC 1167), it was inter-alia held as follows (at Para 6):
"Trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to achieve, according to law and the procedure of the Court, a judicial determination between the contesting parties of the matter in controversy. Opportunity to the parties interested in the dispute to present their 15 respective cases on question of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence tendered by the parties and adjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon a finding on the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a judicial trial. In a judicial trial, the judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest; it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant 16 decision is just. It is unfortunate that the learned Trial Judge has recorded no reasons in support of his conclusion, and the High Court in appeal merely recorded that they thought that the plaintiff had sufficiently proved the case in the plant."
11. The declaration by a Judge of his intention of what his `judgment' is going to be, or a declaration of his intention of what final result it is going to embody, is not a judgment until he had crystallized his intentions into a formal shape and pronounced it in open court as the final expression of his mind.
12. The CPC does not envisage the writing of a judgment after deciding the case by an oral judgment and it must not be resorted to and it would be against public policy to ascertain by evidence alone what the `judgment' of the Court was, where the final result was announced orally but the `judgment', as defined in the CPC embodying a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision, was finalized later on.
13. Section 2(9) of the CPC defines a "judgment" to mean the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order.
14. In Balraj Taneja and Anr. Vs. Sunil Madan and Anr. (1999 (8) SCC 396), it was inter-alia held as follows:
17
"There is yet another infirmity in the case which relates to the "judgment" passed by the single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench.
"Judgment" as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20 Rule 4(2) which says that a judgment "shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision". It should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment."
15. Undisputedly, the Trial Judge had not completed the judgment before he delivered his decision. That being so, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. What the High Court has directed is to hear only the arguments afresh. While dismissing the appeal, we direct that the arguments shall be heard afresh and the Trial Court shall deliver its judgment as early as practicable, preferably within three months from today. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the 18 Trial Court on 05.03.2008 so that the date for arguments can be fixed."
18. It is also necessary to place reliance on the decision of this court reported in AIR 2001 Kant 120, in the case of Lakshmamma vs Kamalamma And Others, where in it was held as under:
"17. The Trial Court also erred in not considering and deciding issue Nos. (2) to (5). Under Order 20, Rule 5 it is mandatory that the Court shall state its finding or decision with reasons thereof upon each separate issue and all the distinct issues have to be answered by the finding supported by reasons. The exceptional situation is provided under Order 14, Rule 2 where an issue relating to the jurisdiction or a bar to a suit created by any law for the time arises for determination and if Court can once and for all dispose of the case with reference to the said issues only. In such a situation, the Court is entitled to postpone the settlement of other issues only after that issue has been determined and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on the said preliminary issues. In the instant case, issue No. (1) obviously cannot be considered as one covered by the purview of Order 14, Rule 2."19
19. On careful perusal of the above statutory provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5 CPC Trial Court after remand order in R.A.40/92 was duty bound answer all issues raised in the suit while passing the judgment dated 30/7/2005. Non-recording of the findings on the remaining issues by the Trial Court, is totally erroneous and cannot be countenanced in the eye of law and can be safely termed as perverse.
20. Further, on applying legal principles enunciated in Rami Reddy Supra to the case on hand, non recording of finding on remaining issues by Trial Court other than additional Issue Nos.4 and 5, the judgment cannot be termed as a judgment in the eye of law and it is incomplete judgment.
21. First Appellate Court while rendering the judgment on 30/8/2000 in R.A.NO.71/2000 did not notice this error which was apparent on record. Perusal of judgment dated 30/8/2000, shows that even First 20 Appellate Court has failed to decide appeal in accordance with law.
22. It is settled principle of law that right of first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of learned Trial Court as appeal is continuation of suit.
23. It is open to the appellant to challenge all findings of fact or/and of law in the first appeal. Likewise, it is duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire material on record and pass a judgment either confirming the decree of Trial Court or reverse it or even modify the decree.
24. Needless to emphasise that judgment of First Appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record its findings supported by valid reasons, on all issues arising along with the contentions put forth by 21 the parties. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the First Appellate Court had discharged its expected duty.
25. The scope, ambit and power of the first Appellate Court while deciding the first appeal have been subject matter of various judicial pronouncements.
26. In this regard this court gainfully refers to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shasidhar and others vs. Smt. Ashwini Uma Mathad and another (2015) 11 SCC 269, wherein it was held as under:
10. The powers of the first appellate court, while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code, are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra.
11. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge -- V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. (as His Lordship then was the Judge of the Kerala High Court) while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 CPC in Kurian Chacko v. Varkey Ouseph [1968 SCC OnLine Ker 101 : AIR 1969 Ker 316], 22 reminded the first appellate court of its duty as to how the first appeal under Section 96 should be decided. In his distinctive style of writing and subtle power of expression, the learned Judge held as under: (SCC OnLine Ker paras 1-3) "1. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in two courts, has come up here aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit which was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to the property as also his possession and claimed both in himself. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings against the plaintiff both on title and possession. But, in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the whole matter glibly and briefly, in a few sentences.
2. An appellate court is the final court of fact ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case the learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an appellate court.
3. Although there is furious contest between the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent, they appear to agree with me in this observation."
(emphasis supplied) 23
12. This Court in a number of cases while affirming and then reiterating the aforesaid principle has laid down the scope and powers of the first appellate court under Section 96 of the Code. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions.
13. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179], this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 188-89, para 15) "15. ... the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. 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. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court ... while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it."
The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar v. 24 Sangram [(2001) 4 SCC 756], wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings.
14. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith [(2005) 10 SCC 243], this Court stated as under: (SCC p. 244, para 3) "3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title."
15. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa, [(2005) 12 SCC 303], while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 303, para
2) "2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion."
16. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy [B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 25 13 SCC 530 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 808] , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-5) "3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state:
(a) the points for determination;
(b) the decision thereon;
(c) the reasons for the decision; and
(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.
4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. 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. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for 26 decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179, SCC p. 188, para 15) and Madhukar v. Sangram [Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756] , SCC p. 758, para 5.)
5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law." 27
17. The aforementioned cases were relied upon by this Court while reiterating the same principle in SBI v. Emmsons International Ltd. [(2011) 12 SCC 174: (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 289] This Court has recently taken the same view on similar facts arising in Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar [(2015) 1 SCC 391: (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 521: (2014) 12 Scale 171] .
27. Similar reiteration of law can be found in a very recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. S.P. Srivastava (deceased) through LRs, 2017 (2) SCC 415, wherein it was held as under:-
"12. An appellate court is the final court of facts. The judgment of the appellate court must therefore reflect court's application of mind and record its findings supported by reasons. The law relating to powers and duties of the first appellate court is well fortified by the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements.
28. Adverting the case on hand, in view of the aforesaid exposition of law, the judgment and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court confirming the 28 judgment and decree of trial court without there being any finding recorded on all issues, cannot be countenanced and sustained in law. This court has no hesitation in holding that the First Appellate Court failed in properly discharging its duty. As such, judgment dated 30/8/2000 is also to be termed as incomplete judgment.
29. Therefore, this Court has no option, but to set aside the judgment and decree so passed by Trial Court and confirmed by first appellate court and remand the matter for decision afresh by hearing the arguments on all issues as recording of evidence is concluded.
30. Since the suit is of the year 1985, the Trial Court is requested to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, not later than 31st January 2021. Needless to say, that the parties, through their learned counsel(s), shall cooperate for early disposal of the suit.
29
31. In view of foregoing discussion, following order is passed.
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.07.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Gokak in R.A.No.71/2000 as well as the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2000 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Gokak in O.S.No.187/1985 are hereby set-aside.
The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Trial Court is directed to hear the arguments on behalf of the parties afresh and dispose of the suit in accordance with law by answering all issues.
Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 1985, Trial Court is hereby requested that suit shall be disposed of on or before 31.01.2021.
The parties, through their learned counsel(s), are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court 30 on 05.09.2020 and shall co-operate for early disposal of suit.
Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records with the copy of this judgment at the earliest.
Sd/-
JUDGE yan