Skip to content


Annaji Ramchandra Vs. Thakubai Dattatraya Deshpande - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal from Order No. 10 of 1926
Judge
Reported in(1929)31BOMLR208; 118Ind.Cas.790
AppellantAnnaji Ramchandra
RespondentThakubai Dattatraya Deshpande
Excerpt:
.....court is of opinion that certain findings of fact are necessary for the proper disposal of an appeal and that evidence should be led on these points, the correct procedure for the court is to frame issues and refer them for trial to the trial court. findings should then be returned to the diatrict court which must re-hear the appeal so far as is necessary, and dispose of it, under order xli, rule 25, of the civil procedure code. it is not competent to the diatrict court in such a ease to reverse the decree and remand the case to the trial court for disposal under rule 23, which only applies to the case where a suit has been decided on a preliminary point. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste..........rule 25, by which the appellate court may frame issues and refer them for trial to the court whose decree is appealed from. findings should then be returned to the appellate court. which must rehear the appeal so far as is necessary, and so dispose of it. in this case the learned judge seems to have acted partly under rule 23, which only applies to the case of a suit which has been decided on a preliminary point, and so reversed the decree given on the strength of that point, and also, partly under rule 25, by calling for further findings. i think that this cannot be done. in substance, what the order amounts to is, in my opinion, that he found on the preliminary points which were points of law and then discovered that further evidence was necessary on issues of fact and, therefore,.....
Judgment:

Murphy, J.

1. In this matter the learned District Judge of Sholapur when dealing with an appeal from the decree of the Joint Subordinate Judge's Court of that place has passed an order which, we think, cannot be sustained under the provisions of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code. His findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2 were, that plaintiff and defendant No. 4 were not estopped from showing that they had been minors at the date of execution of Exhibit 44. He then went on to say that an issue must next he raised on the question of fact whether they were actually minors or not and that evidence must be taken on this point because though the trial Court had recorded a finding that these ladies had then been majors, no issue had so far been raised on this point and the parties had not had a proper opportunity of adducing all their evidence. He next found on issue No. 4 that the consent of the husbands of plaintiff and defendant No. 4 was in law necessary to give validity to the sale which the plaintiff was impugning; and also found on the latter part of this issue that there should have been a definite finding whether the husbands' consent had been given or not. He therefore thought that the parties must be given an opportunity of adducing evidence on this point as well as on issues Nos. 3, 5 and 8. As a result of these conclusions he remanded the suit to the lower Court for disposal in accordance with these directions and at the same time set aside the original Court's decree dismissing the suit.

2. Under the provisions of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code when the Court is of opinion, as in this case, that certain findings of fact are necessary for the proper disposal of an appeal, and that evidence should be led on these points the proper procedure is under Rule 25, by which the appellate Court may frame issues and refer them for trial to the Court whose decree is appealed from. Findings should then be returned to the appellate Court. which must rehear the appeal so far as is necessary, and so dispose of it. In this case the learned Judge seems to have acted partly under Rule 23, which only applies to the case of a suit which has been decided on a preliminary point, and so reversed the decree given on the strength of that point, and also, partly under Rule 25, by calling for further findings. I think that this cannot be done. In substance, what the order amounts to is, in my opinion, that he found on the preliminary points which were points of law and then discovered that further evidence was necessary on issues of fact and, therefore, remanded the case for findings after reversing the original decree. This order is technically wrong, and must be amended in this Court.

3. We must, therefore, vary the appellate Court's decree by directing that the findings which it asked the original Court to give en the issues specified in the order should be tried and decided in the Subordinate Judge's Court, and the findings on those issues should then be returned to the District Court which will rehear the appeal and pass an order in accordance with law.

4. Both sides may adduce evidence on the issues which have been remanded by the District Judge, and findings should be returned to the District Court within a reasonable time, to be fixed by that Court.

Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.

5. I agree, We vary the order of December 10, 1925, by discharging the direction to set aside the decree of the first Court and for a remand of the suit to the lower Court, and by ordering instead, under Order XLI, Rule 25, Civil Procedure Code, that the issues in question referred to in the judgment of the lower appellate Court be tried by the first Court and that the findings and the evidence be returned to the lower appellate Court.

6. Each party to bear his own costs of the appeal to us.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //