The High Court held that the lower appellate court failed to comply with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the appellate court to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for decision.

( 1 ) THIS SECOND APPEAL IS FROM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE 1st ADDITIONAL district JUDGE, KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM IN A. S. NO. 16 OF 1987, DATED 17-6-1993 setting ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O. S. NO. 143 OF 1981 ON THE FILE OF THE district MUNSIF, KAIKALUR, DATED: 1-10-1986.

( 2 ) THE APPELLANTS ARE THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE SUIT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE parties HEREIN ARE REFERRED TO AS THEY ARE ARRAYED IN THE SUIT.

( 3 ) THE PLAINTIFFS FILED THE SUIT, O. S. NO. 143 OF 1981 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT munsif, KAIKALUR, FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT AND HER men FROM INTERFERING WITH THEIR POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OVER THE SUIT schedule PROPERTY AND FOR COSTS. AS PER THE AVERMENTS IN THE SUIT, THE PLAINTIFFS are BROTHERS AND THE DEFENDANT IS THEIR SENIOR PATERNAL AUNT. PLAINTIFFS BEING minors ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER, LOYA KOTESWAR RAO. LOYA RAGHAVULU, loya KOTESWAR RAO AND LOYA SEETHARAMAIAH ARE BROTHERS. THE DEFENDANT IS THE second WIFE OF RAGHAVULU. LOYA RAGHAVULU AND LOYA SITARAMAIAH HAVE NO issue, WHILE KOTESWARA RAO HAS THREE SONS, WHO ARE THE PLAINTIFFS. LOYA raghavulu OWNS CERTAIN MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. HE WAS SUFFERING from CANCER FOR CONSIDERABLE TIME. HE DIED ON 9-10-1980. HE EXECUTED A WILL dated: 10-8-1980 BEQUEATHING ONE ACRE OF LAND COVERED BY SY. NO. 620 SITUATED at BHASKARARAOPET IN FAVOUR OF PLAINTIFFS NO. L AND 2; 56 CENTS OF LAND IN sy. NO. 620/4 IN FAVOUR OF THE 3rd PLAINTIFF WITH ABSOLUTE RIGHTS. HE FURTHER bequeathed AC. 1. 45 CENTS OF LAND IN R. S. NO. 621/2,5 CENTS OF HOUSE-SITE AND certain MOVABLES IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT WITH LIFE INTEREST WITH VESTED remainder EQUALLY WITH PLAINTIFFS. AFTER THE DEATH OF RAGHAVULU, THE PLAINTIFFS CAME INTO POSSESSION OF THE LAND AND HAVE BEEN ENJOYING THE SAME AS PER THE WILL deed. HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT STARTED INTERFERING WITH THEIR POSSESSION. AFTER exchange OF NOTICES, THE SUIT WAS LAID BY THE PLAINTIFFS.

( 4 ) THE DEFENDANT DENIED THE EXECUTION OF WILL DEED DATED 10-8-1980. HER husband NEVER INFORMED HER OF SUCH A WILL DURING HIS LIFE TIME; THAT SHE IS IN possession OF ENTIRE LANDS; THAT SHE IS CULTIVATING THE SAID LAND AND PAYING THE land REVENUE, ETC. THE BOUNDARIES OF LAND BEQUEATHED ARE NOT CORRECT. ON 9-10-1980 HER HUSBAND EXECUTED A WILL IN HER FAVOUR BEQUEATHING ALL THE LANDS. EVEN OTHERWISE SHE BEING THE SOLE SURVIVING LEGAL HEIR, IS ENTITLED TO INHERIT THE entire PROPERTY UNDER HINDU SUCCESSION ACT. THE PLAINTIFFS WERE NEVER IN possession OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF FILING OF the SUIT AND HENCE THE SUIT FOR MERE INJUNCTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

( 5 ) THE TRIAL COURT, ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS, FRAMED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: (I) WHETHER THE WILL SET UP BY THE PLAINTIFFS IS TRUE AND VALID, ACTED UPON and BINDING ON DEFENDANT ? (II) WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS ARE IN POSSESSION OF THE PLAINT SCHEDULE properties AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE SUIT? (III) WHETHER THE WILL SET UP BY THE DEFENDANT IS TRUE, VALID AND BINDING ON plaintiffs? (IV) WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED FOR THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS prayed FOR ? (V) TO WHAT RELIEF?

( 6 ) SIX WITNESSES WERE EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND DOCUMENTS - exs. A-1 TO A-11 WERE MARKED. ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT EIGHT WITNESSES WERE examined AND GOT MARKED EXS B-1 TO B-11. THE TRIAL COURT ON CONSIDERATION OF evidence AND DOCUMENTS PASSED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1-10-1986.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED BY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT, THE DEFENDANT filed APPEAL - A. S. NO. 16 OF 1987 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, machilipatnam. THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY ITS JUDGMENT and DECREE DATED: 17-6-1993 BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE lower COURT. AS AGAINST THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED: 17-6-1993, THE PLAINTIFFS FILED the PRESENT SECOND APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL procedure.

( 8 ) SRI T. VEERABHADRAIAH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR