BANGARAPPA Vs. RUDRAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under section 100 of the CPC is directed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below whereby a suit bearing O.S.No. 236/94 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, stands allowed. The suit was instituted for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit properties and for injunction restraining the appellant-defendant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, from interfering with their possession over the suit property.

(2.) At the stage of admission of the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:

(3.) Sri Nagabhushana, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, invited my attention to the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Anita -vs-Abdul Wahid, 1985 AIR(Bom) 98, to contend that mere statement as to "Whether the judgment of the trial Court requires consideration?" as a point for determination by the appellate Court is inadequate. He further submitted, as a result of framing of such a point for determination, the Court of appeal misdirected itself and/or failed to consider the real points/issues involved in the appeal for determination. In support of his contentions, he took me through the judgments of the Courts below, more particularly, the judgment of the Court of first appeal and submitted that the appellate Court misdirected itself while deciding the first appeal, merely because no proper points for determination were framed.