Provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 are mandatory.

1. The appellant in the second appeal in S.A.No.1451 of 1998 is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.291 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judges Court at Srivilliputhur for the reliefs of possession and also for arrears of rent of Rs.9,000.

2. The appellant in S.A.No.1452 of 1998 is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.203 of 1990.

3. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.203 of 1990 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judges Court at Srivilliputhur for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents/defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant plaintiff.

4. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Srivilliputhur who tried both the suits together, delivered a common judgment. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge after considering the rival contentions of both the parties dismissed the suit in O.S.No.203 of 1990 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.291 of 1995 declaring that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of possession of the suit property and also for the arrears of rent of Rs.9,000 but rejecting the claim of interest to the said sum of Rs.9,000 and giving liberty to the appellant/plaintiff to claim future damages in separate proceedings.

5. Aggrieved against the said findings of the trial court, the appellant defendant preferred the first appeals in A.S.Nos.1 of 1997 and 2 of 1997 respectively, before the Principal District Court at Srivilliputhur, and the learned Principal District Judge after hearing the learned counsel for both sides and after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, dismissed both the appeals without costs, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial courts.

6. Not satisfied with the concurrent findings of both the courts below, the appellant/plaintiff defendant has come forward with these two second appeals.

7. Both the counsel were heard in full. After hearing both the counsel on record I find that this is a fit case for admission as substantial question of law is involved. Hence, the second appeals are admitted. The following substantial question of law is framed as follows:

“Whether the common judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated by non-compliance of the mandatory provision of O.41, Rule 31 of C.P.C..”

8. Point:A perusal of the trial court common judgment in O.S.Nos.203 of 1990 and 291 of 1995 would disclose that as many as eight issues were also framed for trial in O.S.No.203 of 1990, whereas as many as seven issues were also framed in the connected suit in O.S.No.291 of 1995. But the first appellate court viz., The Principal District Judges Court at Srivilliputhur has framed the points for determination in respect of the two appeals in A.S.No.1 of 1997 and 2 of 1997 in the following words in Tamil:

"TAMIL"

9. Therefore the first appellate court viz., The Principal District Judges Court at Srivilliputhur has framed two points for determination, and they are similar, and it is to the effect whether the Judgment rendered in both the suits by the trial court is correct. That is the only point for determination framed by the first appellate court. There is no other point framed by the first appellate court for determination. In the above background we have to consider the rival contentions of both the counsel on record. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.G.M.Nathan argued that the judgment of the first appellate court is not in accordance with law and it does not satisfy the provisions of O.41, Rule 31 of C.P.C., which stipulates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state the points for determination, the decisions thereon and the reasons for the decisions. According to him the learned Principal District Judge at Srivilliputhur has not formulated any point for determination in respect of the pleadings of the parties and in respect of the questions raised therein, and as such the mandatory provision of O.41, Rule