A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPAversusSANGONDEPPA & ANR.

                     [2013] 12 S.C.R. 397


             A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPA                                 A
                                v.
                  SANGONDEPPA & ANR.
              (Civil Appeal No. 10490 of 2013)
                    NOVEMBER 19, 2013                                 B
  [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
             AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

    CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908:
                                                                      c
      0.41, r.31 - First appeal - Disposal of - Held: A regular
first appeal is to be disposed of, particularly, in the light of 0.
41 r.31 - It mandates that appellate court has to frame points
for determination, decision thereon, reasons for the decision
and where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied,             D
the relief to which appellant is entitled -- First appeal is a
valuable right and unless restricted by law, the whole case is
open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law --
Accordingly, judgment of appellate court must reflect its
conscious application of mind and record findings supported           E
by reasons, on all issues arising along with contentions put
forth by both sides -- In the instant case, relevant aspects have
not been noticed and adverted to by High Court -- Appeal has
been decided in an unsatisfactory manner which falls short
of considerations expected from the court of first appeal --          F
Judgment of High Court is set aside and regular first appeal
is remanded to it for disposal afresh.

    B. V. Nagesh and Another vs. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy
                       =
2010 (11) SCR 784 (2010) 13 sec 530 - relied on.
                                                                      G
                       Case Law Reference:

     2010 (11) SCR 784           relied on              para 7


                                397                                   H
    398      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 12 S.C.R.

A       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
B 2004.
          Sabha for the Appellant.

       Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Lave Kumar Sharma, V.N.
    Raghupathy for the Respondents.
c
          The folowing order of the Court was delivered by

                                ORDER

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

       3. Learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through
E 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
F in the absence of appreciation of evidence and acceptability
  of the findings recorded by the trial Court.
        4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the
    impugned decision of the High Court.
G       5. In 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.

      6. In a series of decisions, this Court has h!Jhlighted how
H 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             A
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.                                    B

      7. It 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           C
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.
                                                                          D
     8. By 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.         E.
     9. In 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.
                                                                          F
     10. We 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.                                                        G

       11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

R.P.                                           Appeal disposed of.

                                                                          H