G RUDRAPPA Vs. BASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgement and decree of the Court of the Civil Judge, Chitradurga, in R.A. No.9/1975 confirming the judgement and decree of the Court of the Munsiff, Hosadurga, in O.S. No.23/1972 for declaration of his title to . the suit property and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff had alleged that he had purchased the suit property from one Ramachandrappa (defendant-2/ Respondent-2) for valuable consideration on 14-6-1970 and therefore he was entitled to the relief claimed. Inter alia the defendants-respondents resisted the suit contending that defendant-2 had no authority to alienate the property, he was not the Manager, there was no legal necessity or family necessity and therefore the sale was invalid. The trial Court upheld the contentions of the defendants and dismissed the suit.

(2.) When the regular appeal came up for arguments before the first Appellate Court on 17-9- 1977, the Appellate Court was obsessed with the absence of the appellant's Counsel as it observes in paragraph 13 of the judgment, that even though the appeal had been posted in the special list in the interest of justice the opportunity was given to the appellant's Counsel to argue the case on 19-9- 1977. When the arguments were not advanced on that day also, the Appellate Court proceeded to deliver its considered judgment on merits.

(3.) A grievance is now made in this second appeal that the first Appellate Court was wrong in disposing of the appeal without discussing the evidence on record and simply observing that the issues framed by the trial Court was un-exceptionable and the judgment followed from that evidence. It is particularly contended that there is no discussion of evidence by the first Appellate Court which is opposed to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on this ground alone the decree is liable to be set aside.