A first appellate court reversing a trial decree must independently assess the evidence and give reasons.

The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property belonged to their mother, Aktar Sayeeda Begum, and that they inherited it on her death.

They disputed that she had executed a general power of attorney (GPA) authorising M. Raziyuddin Nadeem to sell the property, and sought a declaration of title and possession, cancellation of the sale deed dated 16 June 1984, and an injunction.

The trial court decreed the suit, finding for the plaintiffs on title and possession and cancelling the sale deed.

The first appellate court reversed that decree.

In the second appeal, the High Court admitted the matter on a substantial question concerning the first appellate court’s decision in the absence of evidence of the alleged GPA.

1. Whether the first appellate court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s decree without the defendants producing evidence of the alleged GPA authorising the sale of the property?

2. Whether the first appellate court’s judgment could stand when it had not framed proper points for consideration, re-appreciated the evidence, and given its own reasons for reversing the trial court?

Under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a first appellate court must identify the points for determination, consider the evidence and submissions, and give reasons for its decision.

The appellate court’s duty to provide an independent and reasoned judgment when reversing a trial court was supported by Lakshmi v. Gopi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs. v. A. Ramalingam, AIR 2011 SC 1492.

The High Court found that the first appellate court had reversed the trial decree without framing proper points for consideration or undertaking a reasoned re-appraisal of the evidence; it had principally extracted portions of testimony and referred to exhibits without supplying its own reasons for reversal.

This failed to meet the appellate court’s obligations under Order XLI Rule 31 and the principles in the cited Supreme Court decisions.

Because the appeal required reconsideration by the first appellate court, the High Court expressly refrained from deciding the merits, including the parties’ substantive contentions.

It set aside the first appellate court’s judgment and restored the regular appeal to that court, directing it to frame proper points for consideration, re-appreciate the entire evidence, give detailed reasons, and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

The merits were left open, and the parties were directed to appear before the first appellate court on 2 November 2026.