HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No.: 171 of 1996 Decided on: 10.12.2009 Dev Raj and another …Appellants. Versus Jeeta and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For respondents No.1, 2 & 3(a) to 3(d): Mr.Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, on 28.2.1996, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Court No.I, Paonta Sahib, decreeing the suit for possession in favour of the plaintiff, was allowed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the land in suit measuring 1-7 bigha, as detailed in the plaint, alleging that the previous owner Smt.Hira was deaf and dumb and was not in a position to enter into any contract by transfer or exchange of her __________ Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. - 2 - share. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants No.1 to 4, in connivance with the revenue staff, got the entries recorded in their names, though no such exchange took place and the said owner was not competent to enter into any exchange. The plaintiffs prayed for the decree of possession accordingly on the assertions that the defendants are in possession on the basis of the entries in their favour. The defendants set up the plea of exchange and contested the suit. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. On appeal, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings vide the impugned judgment. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that the learned First Appellate Court has decided only the issue in regard to the maintainability of the suit and has not given its findings on the other issues. It was further argued there were specific assertions made praying for the decree for possession, but the learned First Appellate Court did not give its findings as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of possession or not. Accordingly, the findings of the learned First Appellate are sought to be reversed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment for the reasons recorded therein. - 3 - On appraisal of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court, it is clear that the learned First Appellate Court decided the appeal on two points. The second point was in regard to non-joinder of the parties and the said point was decided in favour of the appellants by the learned First Appellate Court. In so far as the findings recorded under point No.1 are concerned, the First Appellate Court picked up the point in regard to the maintainability and decided the same as against the appellants. It is clear that the learned First Appellate Court has not given its findings on other issues and has not referred to the evidence in detail while deciding point No.1. It has only made reference to the testimony of two witnesses of the plaintiffs, namely, Kartar Singh and Dev Raj and accordingly concluded that the suit was not maintainable. The learned First Appellate Court was required to give its detailed reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the learned trial Court and for that matter, it should have discussed the whole evidence led by both the parties. Moreover, according to law, it is required that the findings should be given on all the issues by the First Appellate Court and not in the manner in which the learned Additional District Judge has decided the appeal by taking up one issue and not giving its findings on other issues and without discussing the evidence led by both the parties. Keeping in view the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the case should be remanded back to the learned - 4 - First Appellate Court for re-hearing the parties and to give its findings on all the issues. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and the case is remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 4.1.2010. The learned Additional District Judge shall fix the date of hearing of the appeal and then the findings shall be given as far as possible within a period of 3 months of the date fixed for hearing. The record of the case be sent back alongwith a copy of this judgment. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 10, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.