(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenali, in A.S. No. 124 of 1958 on his file. The facts are all stated; in the judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge and that of the learned District Munsif (O.S. No. 279 of 1956) and it is unnecessary to restate them once again. It is, however, necessary to mention that before the trial Court three principal points were raised. 1. That the suit promissory notes were not true and, in any case, not supported by consideration. 2. That the decree in O.S. No. 205 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, was collusive and fraudulently obtained and is not binding on the plaintiff and the second defendant. 3. That the suit was not filed in time under Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act. On these three points, the learned District Munsif found in favour of the plaintiffs and directed that it be declared that the deciee in O.S. No. 205 of 1949 was not binding on the plaintiffs. In an appeal by the first defendant, the learned Subordinate Judge has taken into consideration only the question of limitation. He came to the conclusion that Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act applied to the present case and that the suit was not instituted within six years from the date of the accrual of the cause of action. He did not take into consideration any other question arising in the appeal. That he has not done so is stated by him in paraeraph 4 of his judgment. It has been repeatedly held that, in all cases against which appeals lie, it is desirable that the Subordinate Courts should give findings on all the questions raised in the suit so as to obviate the need for a remand and for a fresh trial. This is a salutary rule of procedure which has been emphasised on more than one occasion by the Judicial Committee and the High Court-Vide Sarveswaraswamy Van Temples v. Rudrapaka Veerabhadraiah and others., (1961) 1 An.W.R. 250.
(2.) It seems to me, therefore, thar in this case I should call for findings from the Subordinate Judge, Tenali, on the other questions raised in the appeal, A.S. No. 124 of 1958. The learned Subordinate Judge will, on the evidence already on record, determine those points, record and forward his findings within two months from the date of receipt of the papers in his Court. The parties will have 10 days' time to file objections after the receipt of the findings. In pursuarce of the aforesaid Order, the Subordinate Judge of Tenali submitted the following finding : [Finding omitted.]
(3.) The appeal was then heard by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., and the Court delivered the following.