Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers  ||  Delhi HC: CCI Cannot Levy Interest Retrospectively Before Valid Service of Demand Notice  ||  Delhi HC: VC Rules Don’t Shield PMLA Accused From Physically Appearing Before ED in Probe  ||  SC: If Complaint Reveals Cognizable Offence, Magistrate May Order FIR Registration U/S .156(3) CrPC  ||  SC: Private Buses Can’t Operate on Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified State Transport Routes  ||  Delhi HC: Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Provisional Attachment When PMLA Remedy Exists    

Prafulla Kumar Sahu Vs. Uchaba Sahoo and Ors. - (High Court of Orissa) (29 Mar 2018)

It is the duty of the first appellate court to scan evidence on record and pleadings and answer all issues

MANU/OR/0163/2018

Property

The case of the Plaintiff is that, he is the natural born son of Ekadasi Sahu. He was adopted by Naran Sahu. On 8th August, 1966, Naran Sahu executed a deed acknowledging adoption, Ext. 5, in his favour. Plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the reliefs. The Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to him, the Plaintiff is not the adopted son of Naran. The sale deed was executed by Naran for legal necessity. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that, Plaintiff is not the adopted son of Naran Sahu. Present is Plaintiff's appeal against an affirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction.

In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs', the Apex Court reminded the duty of the first appellate court. The Apex Court held that, 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. The task of an appellate court affirming the findings of the trial court is an easier one. The appellate court agreeing with the view of the trial court need not restate the effect of the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court, decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice. Expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate court for shirking the duty cast on it.

First appeal is valuable right of the parties. The whole case is 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.

It is the duty of the first appellate court to scan the evidence on record and pleadings and answer all issues. In the instant case, the judgment is a laconic one. No reason has been assigned. Thus, the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned lower appellate court for de novo hearing.

Relevant : Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs', MANU/SC/0091/2001: (2001) 3 SCC 179

Tags : DEED   EXECUTION   RIGHT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved