Brijesh Kumar ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they, along with defendant No. 1, were the joint owners in possession of the suit property and also for a declaration that gift deed bearing No. 3041/65 and the two sale deeds dated 28.2.1989 were ineffective insofar as the rights of the plaintiffs are concerned. Suit was dismissed by the trial Court. A perusal of the order of the trial Court shows that suit was dismissed inter alia on the ground (1) of limitation; and (2) on the ground that decision in an earlier suit being OS No. 93/73 operated as res judicata against defendant No. 1 only. Before the trial Court, documentary evidence was led, including placing on record copies of entries of public records and decision of the earlier suit (O.S. No. 93/71).
3. Against the dismissal of the suit, a first appeal was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents in the High Court. The High Court, after noticing some details from the judgment of the trial Court as also pleadings of the parties, opined that the questions to be decided in the appeal were :
"(1) Whether the relationship claimed by the parties are true?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?"
4. After deciding these questions in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the first appeal. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by special leave by the appellants-contesting defendants.
5. We have carefully perused the judgment and decree of the High Court in the first appeal. We find that substantial documentary evidence had been placed before the trial Court including certified copies of certain public records besides copy of the judgment and decree of the earlier suit (OS No. 93/71). Oral Evidence had also been led by the parties before the trial Court, which was noticed and appreciated by the trial Court. However, the impugned judgment in the first appeal, is singularly silent of any discussion either of documentary evidence or oral evidence. Not only that, we find that though trial Court had dismissed the suit on ground of limitation as also on the ground that the decision in the earlier suit (OS No. 93/71) operated as res judicata against defendant No. 1 only the High Court has not even considered, much less discussed, correctness of either of the two grounds on which the trial Court had dismissed the suit.
Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording it findings.
It has failed to discharge the obligation placed on a first appellate court. The judgment under appeal is so cryptic that none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in a very unsatisfactory manner. First appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings.