Failure to frame proper points for determination warrants remand of the first appeal for fresh adjudication.

The original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 205 of 1988 seeking permanent injunction against dispossession from the suit land.

The plaintiff claimed possession as a mortgagee and asserted that, since the mortgage had not been redeemed, the plaintiff’s predecessor had acquired ownership rights.

Original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the mortgage had been redeemed and that defendant No. 3 had subsequently executed registered sale deeds in their favour.

The Trial Court decreed the suit on 21.01.1995, substantially relying on the plaintiff’s evidence and the Court Commissioner’s report, despite the defendants not cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses or leading oral evidence.

The First Appellate Court dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1996 and confirmed the decree, framing only whether the Trial Court’s order was illegal, capricious, materially defective or perverse.

The defendants therefore preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Whether possession of the suit property could be established on the basis of a report submitted by a Court Commissioner appointed under Order XXVI of the CPC.

Whether the Courts below erred in holding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land solely on the basis of the Commissioner’s report, Exhibit 91.

Whether the First Appellate Court erred by failing to formulate and adjudicate the necessary points for determination arising from the pleadings and written submissions of the parties.

The appeal was governed by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which a Second Appeal lies only on a substantial question of law.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a First Appellate Court must formulate appropriate points for determination and adjudicate the material issues arising between the parties before deciding the appeal on merits.

The Court further accepted that, where the appellate adjudication is procedurally deficient and the parties consent to remand, the appellate judgment may be set aside and the appeal restored for fresh decision, while keeping the parties’ rights and contentions open.

The High Court noted that the First Appellate Court had framed only a general question regarding the legality or perversity of the Trial Court’s judgment and had failed to address the specific contentions raised by the appellants, including the evidentiary basis for finding the plaintiffs’ possession and the significance of the Commissioner’s report.

Since the proper points for determination had not been formulated or adjudicated, the appellate decision did not adequately resolve the controversy between the parties.

In view of the parties’ consensus that the appeal should be remanded, the High Court considered it unnecessary to decide the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission and instead directed the First Appellate Court to reconsider the appeal afresh on all relevant issues.

The High Court quashed and set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and restored Regular Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1996 to its original file for fresh adjudication.

The First Appellate Court was directed to formulate the necessary points for determination and decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably by 31.03.2027.

The parties were directed to maintain the existing status quo until final disposal of the appeal.

No order as to costs was made, and the record was ordered to be returned to the appellate court.