SC: Under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, A Transferee Pendente Lite Cannot Obstruct Execution of a Decree  ||  SC: RTE Act promotes fraternity and equality by children of judges and vendors studying together  ||  MP High Court: Aadhaar and Voter ID Cards are Not Definitive Proof of Date of Birth  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Second Marriage During Subsisting First Marriage Void Unless Custom Permits It  ||  Allahabad HC: Will in Favor of Someone Does Not Affect Compassionate Appointment Based on Dependency  ||  MP High Court: Mere Illness of a Family Member, If Improving, is Not Sufficient for Interim Bail  ||  Bombay HC: ?25K Fine for Flying Kites With Nylon Manjha; Parents Must Ensure Responsible Conduct  ||  Delhi High Court: Home State Must be the First Preference For Claiming Insider IFS Cadre Allocation  ||  SC: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Her Father-In-Law’s Death is Entitled to Maintenance  ||  SC: Vendor Remains a Necessary Party in Specific Performance Suits Even After Transferring Property    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved