KOPPU SATHIAH Vs. KOPPU CHANDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Raja Malla Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri M. Venkata Rami Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) Sri Raja Malla Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the appellate Court and would maintain that no specific finding as such had been recorded that the Decree and judgment of the Court of first instance are to be set aside. The learned Counsel also would submit that, just on the ground that proper findings had not been recorded on question of limitation, an order of remand was made, and the same is not just and proper. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the following decisions :

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel representing the respondent would maintain that it is, no doubt, true mat the learned Judge at paragraph 14 referred to the question of limitation and came to the conclusion that the question of limitation appears to have been decided by the Court of first instance with undue haste. However, the Counsel would submit that this is not the only ground, but, the learned Judge also discussed about the non-consideration of the evidence available on record, and thought it fit to remand the matter for re-appreciation of the same.