( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 1792 of 1981 in the Court of the I Additional District Munsif Guntur. They have filed the suit for declaration and for consequential injunction and also for mandatory injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by that Judgment, they filed an appeal A. S. No. 54 of 1986 before the District Court, Guntur. The appeal was dismissed by the III Addl. District Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated 22-7-1991.

( 2 ) THE substantial question of law raised by the appellants in the Second appeal is that the Judgment of the Appellate Court i. e. , the III Additional district Judge, Guntur is not in accordance with the provisions of Order 41, rule 31 CPC, and therefore it is not a Judgment in the eye of law. Order 41, Rule 31 CPC reads as follows:-"the Judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled, and shall bear the date on which it is pronounced and shall be signed by the Judge or the Judges concurring therein: provided that where the Presiding Judge is specially empowered by the High Court to pronounce his Judgment by direction to a shorthand writer in open court the transcript of the Judgment so pronounced shall, after such revision as may be deemed necessary, be signed by the Judge. "

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that in para 8 of the Judgment, the appellate court has stated that the point for consideration is whether the Appellants are entitled to set aside the decree and Judgment passed by the lower court in O. S. No. 1782 of 1981 dt. 23-4-1986? He contended that when several contentions were raised by the parties, the Appellate Court has to frame various points for determination and record the decision thereon but it cannot merely say as to whether the Judgment and decree of the trial court are liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) IN the case reported in Smt. Anita M. Harretto vs. Abdul Ahid Sanaullah, a learned Judge of the Bombay High Court has pointed out as to how in several cases the Appellate Courts have formulated the points for determination in very vague manner ignoring Order 41, Rule 31 (a) CPC, he has pointed out that the points which arise for determination by a Court of first Appeal must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be general and vague. It is a matter of almost text book knowledge that the exact questions which arise in the appeal and require determination must be stated in the Judgment It is not sufficient to state the point to be determined in appeal whether or not the decision is consistent with the merits of the case. The point which was stated hardly a point for determination as contemplated under Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in Assistant Commissioner Tumkur vs. K. N. Nagaraja in which it was pointed out that the Judgment of the first appellate Judge cannot be vitiated for the reason that he has not formulated the points for a decision at the very commencement of his Judgment. A substantial compliance with the requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 will be sufficient and any little deviation therefrom should not be a ground to set aside the entire Judgment on that account. It is no doubt desirable that the first Appellate Court complies with all the requirements of that Rule, but if it is possible to make out from the very Judgment that they have substantially complied with the said requirements and that the Judgment thereby not suffered that would be sufficient.

( 6 ) IT is therefore, necessary that the Appellate Courts should frame the points for determination and record the decision thereon as contemplated under Order 41, Rule 31 CPC. But