Statement of points for determination is not necessary.

1. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit as against the judgment and decree dated 24. 93 made in A.S. No. 2 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Periakulam confirming the judgment and decree dated 13. 82 made in O.S. No. 597 of 1982 on the file of district Munsif Court, Periakulam. The respondent in the second appeal filed the suit for possession of the suit property as well as the recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The learned District Munsif, Periakulam, on consideration of the facts decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the Sub Court, Periakulam. The learned Sub Judge also confirmed the findings of the learned District Munsif and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 to 3.

2. When this second appeal came up for admission, Mr.P.Peppin Fernando representing the respondent took notice and the second appeal itself was directed to be posted for final hearing. Accordingly, when this matter was taken up for final hearing on 8. 2000, Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would restrict his argument only with reference to the substantial question of law namely “whether the lower appellate Court is correct in deciding the appeal without any points for determination as contemplated under Order 41, Rule 31 of C.P.C.” The’ learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Periakulam, more particularly to paragraph 9 which states as follows:-

The learned senior counsel submitted that all that the appellate Court has stated is whether the appeal has to be allowed or not. Therefore, as per Order 41, Rule 31, the learned Judge ought to have framed the points for determination. However, on a persual of the judgment. It is evident that the learned Judge has not stated the points for determination. The learned senior counsel submitted that Order 41, Rule 31 is mandatory and strict compliance is necessary and therefore, failure of appellate Court to conform to Order 41, Rule 31 renders the Judgment as no judgment in law. Therefore, the learned senior counsel submitted that the judgment and decree of the appellate Court are liable to be set aside. In support of the above submission, the learned senior counsel cited the following judgments:-

(1) Munivel v. Munusamy Mudaliar and others , 1997 (I) CTC 26. (2) K.M.M.Kadar Hussain v. O.M.R.Selvaraj and two others , 1997 (I) CTC 559 (3) Palanisami Pillai v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (admn) Department, Madras and another , 1997 (1) LW 704

3. In repudiating the above submissions, Mr.P.Peppin Fernando, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that when there has been a substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31a non-compliance with the strict provisions the said rule will not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void. In the present case, even though the learned Sub Judge Periakulam has not stated specifically the points for determination, has gone into the question of all the issues that were framed before the learned District Munsif and after going into the evidence and appreciating the same has come to an independent conclusion of his own after elaborate discussion. In such event, it should be construed that the learned Sub Judge has substantially complied with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of C.P.C. and therefore, the judgment cannot be said to be void. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments;-

(1) MygapulaGanganna and others v. Sri Rajah Uppalapati Venkata Vijaya Goparaju Garu Bafhiyat Bashand , MLJ 31 870; (2) Durga Thathera v. Narain Thathera and another , AIR 1931 All. 597; (3) Haladhar Sarma v. Assam Go-Seva Samity , AIR 1979 Gau 23; (4) Asst Commissioner Tumkur and other