RAMESH GANGARAM PATIL Vs. SURESH GANPATRAO CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. He submitted that apart from the other substantial questions of law which are arising in this Second Appeal, the judgment of the learned District Judge-2, Kolhapur dated 11 th January 2023 passed in Reg. Civil Appeal No.59 of 2021 is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs.,(2001) 3 SCC 179. He submitted that First Appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the Appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the Appellate Court. He states that the First Appellate Court has to discuss the evidence in detail and consider various submissions. He points out the judgment of the Appellate Court wherein the findings are recorded in cursory manner in three paragraphs i.e. paragraph 18, 19 and 20. He submits that various contentions raised are not at all considered and the evidence on record is not considered.

(2.) Mr. Bhavake also submits that the main issue involved in the case is whether defendant No.1 was having any right to transfer the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. He also submitted that the discretion under Sec. 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is not properly exercised. There is substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.

(3.) Accordingly, Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-