Akshaya Kumar Rath JUDGMENT
Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J.
1. This is plaintiff's appeal against an affirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the natural born son of Ekadasi Sahu. He was adopted by Naran Sahu. On 8.8.66, Naran Sahu executed a deed acknowledging adoption, Ext. 5, in his favour. Uchhaba Sahu, the brother of Ekadasi, married to Sushila, daughter of Naran Sahu. Uchhaba got a sale deed from Naran on 4.12.1957 in respect of schedule 'A' property illegally. After death of Naran, his widow Nila did not maintain the plaintiff, when he was a minor. Thereafter, Ekadasi, natural father of the plaintiff, filed misc. case No. 74 of 1973 under Sec. 7 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 before the District Judge, Cuttack for appointing him as the guardian. The case was allowed. Plaintiff came to know about the illegal transaction made by Uchhaba on 22.12.1981 and got the certified copy of the sale deed, Ext. 7. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.
3. The defendant No. 1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to him, the plaintiff is not the adopted son of Naran. The sale deed was executed by Naran for legal necessity.
4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eighteen issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their respective cases. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding inter alia that plaintiff is not the adopted son of Naran Sahu. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed T.A. No. 14 of 1986 before the learned Sub-Judge, Jagatsinghpur, which was eventually dismissed.
5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law.
"Whether the appellate judgment is correct in view of the decision reported in 1989 O.J.D. (Civil) 187?"
6. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.
7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the suit having been dismissed, the plaintiff filed T.A. No. 14 of 1986 before the learned Sub-Judge, Jagatsinghpur. It is the duty of the first appellate court to scan the evidence on record and pleadings and answer all issues. Learned appellate court did not delve into the matter and dismissed the appeal holding inter alia that plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the adopted son of Naran Sahu. No reason has been assigned. Thus the judgment is perverse.
8. In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs', MANU/SC/0091/2001 : (2001) 3 SCC 179, the apex Court reminded the duty of the first appellate court. The apex Court held:
"... The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. 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. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. The task of an appellate court affirming the findings of the trial court is an easier one. The appellate court agreeing with the view of the trial court need not restate the effect of the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court, decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice (See Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary). We would, however, like to sound a note of caut........