The Appellate Court must provide detailed reasoning for its decisions, failing which the judgment is subject to remand for re-evaluation.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Plaintiff is in second appeal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position as before the Court of the First Instance i.e. the appellant as the plaintiff and the respondents as defendants.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction. Plaintiff Devi Dutt (now deceased) filed suit for declaration claiming that he is owner in possession of 31 Kanals 18 Marlas of land as detailed out in para No.1 of the plaint. He has only one daughter namely Indrawati as his legal heir. Defendants belong to family of the plaintiff. Earlier in order to grab his land, they got a registered Will dated 26.06.1973 executed from him, in their favour misrepresenting the facts. The same was later on cancelled vide registered document dated 20.08.1975. Plaintiff claimed that about six years back Roshal Lal, respondent No.6, approached him expressing his need to avail loan on his share of the land. He claimed that consent of the plaintiff being co-sharer was required. Plaintiff was directed to say ‘yes’ in reply to the questions posed by the Executive Officer. Plaintiff believing the representation of Roshan Lal, came to Rewari on 01.06.1977. His thumb- impressions were obtained and documents were executed. To his shock, he received notice from Income Tax Department in the month of April, 1982 and came to know that defendants got a gift deed executed in their favour from him on 01.06.1977 on the pretext of ‘no objection’.

3. Plaintiff claimed that the gift deed is a result of fraud and misrepresentation played upon him. The same does not vest defendants No.1 to 5 with any right, title or interest in the suit property.

4. Suit was contested by defendants No.1 and 3 to 6. It was denied that the gift deed was executed by playing fraud and misrepresentation. It was claimed that the contents of the gift deed were read over and explained by Deed Writer as well as Sub Registrar to the plaintiff. Admitting the contents thereof as correct, he thumb-marked the same. Mutation regarding gift deed was also sanction in favour of defendants No.1 to 5 on 14.06.1982.

5. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of the First Instance framing the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land? OPP

2. Whether the impugned gift deed dated 1.6.77 is illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiff? OPP

3. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction (onus objected to)? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPP

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPD.

8. Relief.”

6. While returning finding on issues No.1 and 2, Court of the First Instance held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he is owner in possession of the suit land and that the gift deed dated 01.06.1977 is result of fraud and misrepresentation of facts.

7. Issues No.3, 4, 5 and 6 were decided against the defendants.

8. While deciding issue No.7, Court of the First Instance held that the limitation to challenge gift deed is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Limitation is 3 years. PW6 Indrawati admitted that her father told her about the gift deed one year after its execution. The plaintiff having acquired knowledge of the gift deed in the year 1978, the suit instituted on 29.07.1982 was barred by limitation. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

9. Un