Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23/7/2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gangapurcity (Rajasthan) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court'] in Regular Appeal No. 35 of 1999, whereby the Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 31/8/1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bamanwas (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in the Civil Suit No. 96 of 1992.
(2.) THE appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit, seeking declaration to the effect that the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the respondent/defendant on 12/8/1989 be declared as null and void and seeking permanent injunction for restraining the respondents/defendants from putting up any obstruction to the plaintiff's use and occupation of the land in question. The said suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants, denying the allegations made in the plaint and contending inter -alia that the patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat legally to the defendants. The Trial Court, from the pleadings of the parties, had framed five issues, and after appreciating the evidence on record had decreed the suit by setting aside the patta - Ex. A1 issued by the Gram Panchayat, Raiwali in favour of the respondents/defendants, and also by granting the permanent injunction, as prayed for. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondents/defendants had preferred the appeal before the Appellate Court, which appeal came to be allowed vide the impugned judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs had filed the present appeal. Unfortunately the second appeal remained pending at the admission stage for about 10 years without any substantive progress, and when today it was heard, the Court found from the impugned order itself that the Appellate Court had not given any findings on issue Nos. 4 and 5, and had decided the issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly. The Court therefore framed the following substantial question of law: - Whether the Appellate Court has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record in not giving separate findings on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and in not giving any findings on issue Nos. 4 and 5?
(3.) SO far as the substantial question of law is concerned, it is needless to say that as per the provisions contained in Order XLI, Rule 31 of CPC, the judgment of the Appellate Court must contain the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision, and where the decree appealed form is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Thus, though the appellate court could decide more than one points for determination or the issues as the case may be jointly, nonetheless, the appellate court is duty bound to give specific decision for such points or issues. A beneficial reference of the decision in case of H. Siddiqui (Dead) By LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam : (2011) 4 SCC 240 be made in this regard, in which it has been held as under: - "21. The said provisions provide guidelines for the appellate court as to how the court has to proceed and decide the case. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. Thus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate court that the court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the material on record. It would amount to substantial compliance with the said provisions if the appellate court's judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspect of the matter and the findings of the appellate court are well founded and quite convincing. It is mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Doicese of Madurai, Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari and Gannamani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary.)";