ORDER
Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.
1. Defendants 1, 2 and 7 are the appellants.
2. The facts giving rise to this second appeal in brief are that the first respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit against the appellants and the other respondents for declaration of title and possession alleging that in pursuance of the agreement to purchase the property in suit through Ex. A-l, dated 8-5-64, he had leased out the same to defendant No. 6 through Kadapa Ex. A-4 dated 7-2-1968 for a period of five years and thereafter had obtained the release deed Ex. A-5 through letter dated 27-5-73. After the surrender of lands, he started ploughing the suit lands. While so, on 30-5-1973 the appellants and other respondents disturbed his possession. Therefore, he had to file suit in O.S.No. 62/73 on 6-6-1973 for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing his possession; but the suit was dismissed as the first respondent had failed to establish his possession on the date of the suit. Thereafter, the first respondent-plaintiff had purchased the suit property from his vendors through the registered sale deed Ex. A-3 on 10-8-78 and therefore he is entitled to a declaration of title and to recover possession from the appellants and the remaining respondents. He has also alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the 7th respondent, i.e., defendant No. 7 had purchased a portion of the suit property and therefore he is a necessary party to the suit.
3. The defendants resisted the suit alleging that in the earlier suit it was found that the agreement of sale Ex. A-l and the alleged part payments evidenced by Exs. A-4, A-34, A-35 and Kadapa Ex. A-4 had been declared as fabricated documents and the title of the first respondent-plaintiff had also been investigated and it was found that he had no title to the suit property and he was not in possession even from the date of alleged agreement of sale Ex. A-l dt. 8-5-64. They have further pleaded that they were cultivating the suit lands from times immemorial through their ancestors and have acquired title by adverse possession. They have further pleaded that the suit is barred under Section 11 of C. P. C. as also under Order II Rule 2 C. P. C. The trial Court on assessment of the evidence on record dismissed the suit. This order was challenged in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit and decreed the suit as prayed for.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, defendants 1, 2 and 7 have preferred this second appeal.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as also the learned Counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff and after perusal of the judgment and material available on record, I am of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court deserves to be set aside and the case should be remanded to it for fresh disposal according to law for the reasons stated in the subsequent paragraphs.
6. It is settled law that the points which must 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. The first appellate Court should pronounce its opinion on all the important points. It is imperative that the first appellate Court should state the reasons for its decision. It is incumbent on the first appellate Court, which is the filial Court of facts, while reversing decision, to meet the reasonings of the trial Court and indicate its own reasons for the conclusions. The judgment without reasons might altogether neutralise the right of second appeal. The reasons should be stated not only when the decree is set aside or varied but even when it is confirmed. The first appellate Court must state the reasons to show on the face of the judgment that the points in dispute were clearly before its mind before the judgment was pronounced. If this is not done, the decree will be set aside and the case sent back for proper disposal. The first appellate Court should not forget that it should interfere with the finding of fact by the trial Court only on reasons based on facts which are traceable on record. A judgment which does not discuss or allude to the reasoning of the trial judge must be deemed to be vitiated by error of procedure.
7. On a perusal of the judgment of the first appellate Court it appears that from paras 1 to 5 it has narrated the facts of the case and in para 7 it has formulated the points for determination. Then in para 8 it has discussed the arguments of both the parties to the appeal and has referred the case laws which had been cited by the learned Counsel on both sides. Then again in para 10, it has reproduced in brief the arguments of the learned Counsel on both sides. Without discussing the evidence of any one of the witnesses of the parties to the suit, it has observed that after scrutinising the entire material available and on a thorough introspection of oral and documentary evidence, he was of the view that the respondent- plaintiff has got good title by virtue of documents which are Exs. A-l, A-3, A-4 and A-5. It is pertinent to note that these documents had been declared as fabricated in the earlier suit and a reference of this has been specifically mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court. The first appellate Court has not at all given any reasons for disagreeing with the view taken by the trial Court. He has not at all discussed how these documents which were declared earlier as fabricated documents are legal and valid documents.
8. It is noteworthy that the appellants had challenged the title of the vendors of the plaintiff but the first appellate Court has not at all considered whether the vendors of the plaintiff had a valid title to pass on to him. The plaintiff has not even examined his vendors. Even if it is assumed that the plaintiff has got a registered sale deed in his favour, the question that looms large for determination is whether valid title had been conveyed or could be conveyed by the vendors of the plaintiff. That question had remained unanswered by the first appellate Court. As noted above in the earlier suit, which had attained finality, it has been decided that even before the date of alleged possession by the plaintiff, the appellants herein were in cultivation of the suit lands.
9. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent on the first appellate Court to discuss and decide whether the appellants had perfected their title by adverse possession or not. Except observing that it is wrong to state that the appellants had perfected their title by adverse possession, there is no discussion of the evidence available on record.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the first appellate Court for fresh decision according to law on the basis of the material on record and keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 23-12-1997 for further proceedings. As it is an old case, the first appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.
11. The second appeal is accordingly allowed and remanded. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.