The judgment of the first appellate Judge was not vitiated for not formulating the points for his decision at the very commencement of his judgment.

( 1 ) APPELLANTS 1 to 3 herein were defendants 1, 3 and 4 respectively in O. S. No. 554 of 1968 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Tumkur. The respondent herein had filed that suit for a declaration of his title in respect of a well (fully described in the plaint) and for a permanent injunction against these appellants restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said well.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case was that the well is situated in Sy. No. 3/3 of Village Devarayanadurga of which he is the owner; that the well exclusively belongs to him; that the defendants have absolutely no manner of right, title or interest over the same and that at the instance of these appellants the second defendant in the suit was making preparations to put up a pump-house in order to install a pumpset in the well. The contention of these appellants was that the well is not of the exclusive ownership of the plaintiff as claimed by him, that it is a well in the use of the public and the public have the right to draw water from this well for the use of the public in devarayanadurga village proper; that the Government has prepared a scheme under which a pumpset has to be installed in the well and therefore they had entrusted the second defendant, contractor, with that work. The second defendant in the suit remained ex parte. In view of these rival contentions, the Munsiff had framed as many as 9 issues, of which the relevant ones are: issues 1 and 4, the former being as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the well in question and the latter was to whether the public have a right to draw water from the well as contended by the contesting defendants in the suit. On the first issue the finding was in favour of the plaintiff and on the second against the defendants. In the result, he decreed the suit as prayed for with costs.

( 3 ) THESE appellants challenged that judgment and decree in R. A. No. 137 of 1971 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Tumkur. The learned Civil Judge, by his judgment dated 30-9-1974 in R. A. No. 137 of 1971 on his file dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

( 4 ) CHALLENGING the decrees of the Courts below the learned High Court Government Pleader made the following two submissions : his first submission is that the judgment of the first appellate court does not satisfy the requirements of O. 41, R. 31 of the C. P. C. and therefore it is vitated and is required to be set aside remitting the matter to the first appellate court for fresh disposal according to law. His second submission is that even otherwise the courts below had wholly misconstrued the evidence and had arrived at wrong conclusions and therefore the finding though concurrent were required to be set aside.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, supporting the concurrent findings of the court's below, submitted that in this second appeal there were no good grounds to interfere with the said findings, which according to him, were findings arrived at on proper appreciation of facts.

( 6 ) NOW to consider the first point raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader, O. 41, r. 31 of the Civil P. C. ('the Code') provides that 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 the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied the relief to which the appellant is entitled. And shall at the time that is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein. According to the Government Pleaders the Judgment of the first appellate court does not satisfy the requirements of this Rule. His main grievance is that the learned Civil Judge had not formulated any points for his decision and thereby had missed the basic issues involved and had reached thereby a wrong conclusion. In this connection the Government P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document