IMPORTANT POINT
First appellate court is duty bound to appreciate evidence, deal with the issues and discuss the arguments raised by parties.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. These appeals are filed by the plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 02.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal Nos.158 and 159 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant herein

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Even the issue arising in these appeals is a short one. It would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.

3. The appellant is plaintiff in O.S. No. 6640/1996 and defendant in O.S. No. 2150 of 1992 whereas the respondents are defendants in O.S. No. 6640/1996 and plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2150 of 1992 in the suits out of which these appeals arise.

4. The appellant filed a suit being O.S. No. 6640/1996 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore against the respondents for a declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the land described in detail in the plaint (hereinafter referred to as "suit land") whereas original respondent No.1 also filed a cross suit being O.S. No. 2150 of 1992 against the appellant in relation to the suit land.

5. Both the suits were clubbed together for their disposal because both were between the same parties and pertained to same subject matter.

6. Parties contested the suits and adduced evidence. The Trial Court, by common judgment/decree dated 04.12.2004 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant, i.e., O.S. No. 6640/1996 and decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1, i.e., O.S. No. 2150/1992.

7. The plaintiff in O.S. 6640/1996 felt aggrieved and filed two first appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) before the High Court of Karnataka. By impugned judgment/decree, the Single Judge dismissed both the first appeals and affirmed the judgment/decree of the Trial Court, which has given rise to filing of the present appeals by special leave by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 6640/1996 in this Court.

8. Heard Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Mahale, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to the High Court for deciding both the first appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law.

10. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned for the reason that the Single Judge dismissed the appeals very cursorily and without undertaking any appreciation of evidence, dealing with various issues arising in the case and discussing the arguments raised by the parties in support of their case. In other words, the disposal of the two first appeals could not be said to be in conformity with the requirements of Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code.

11. It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first Appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in first appeal. It is the duty of the first Appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and arrive at its own independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of affirmance or difference.

12. Similarly, the powers of the first Appellate Court while deciding the first appeal are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. It is apposite to take note of the law on this issue.

13. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge – V.R. Krishna Iyer, J (as His Lordship then was the judge of Kerala High Court) while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code in Kurian Chacko vs. Varkey Ouseph, AIR 1969 Kerala 316, reminded the first Appellate Court of its duty to decide the first appeal. In his distinctive sty