IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Regular Second Appeal No.29 of 1997. Date of decision:8.4.2009. Jagroop Chand Katoch & Others …Appellants Versus Smt.Kanti Devi & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For Respondents No.1(a): Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior and to 1(d), 2 to 6 : Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal is being disposed of on a short point. The appellants were the defendants before the trial Court. The suit instituted by them was dismissed. Detailed facts are not being considered in this appeal for the reasons hereinafter. The learned appellate Court allowed the appeal invoking the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, holding that succession to the estate of the deceased which was the subject matter of the suit would be governed in terms of the provisions ibid. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 This appeal was admitted on three questions of law. The undisputed facts which emerge are that the succession to the estate of Larja is in dispute. It is admitted by both the appellants and respondents that he died in 1952. Obviously, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act as invoked by the learned appellate Court could not be applied as the Act has no retrospective operation. I find from the judgment that it is in breach of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Kanwal Nain Sachdeva and Others, (1999)9 SCC, 193, State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh(Dead) Through His LRs, (2000)5 SCC 652, and Madhukar and Others vs. Sangram and Others, (2001)4 SCC 756, which mandate that the first appellate Court being the final Court of fact(s) is duty bound to discuss all questions of law and facts and the grounds raised in the appeal. No such attempt has been made by the learned appellate Court while dealing with the appeal. This appeal is of the year 1997. The suit having been instituted in the year 1990, it is after a period of 19 years that the case has now come up before this Court for final decision. It is but with great reluctance that I am remanding this appeal. In the normal circumstances this course of action would not have been adopted, but for the fact that the learned appellate Court is in breach of the statutory duty imposed by law. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the District Judge is quashed and set aside. A 3 direction is issued to the District Judge to dispose of the matter on or before 31.3.2010. Parties to appear before the learned Court on 15.6.2009. Let record of both the Courts below be sent back immediately. April 8, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.