KHETU LAL Vs. NARSINGH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16. 12. 1995 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Falodi in Civil Appeal No. 5/94 whereby he allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree dated 25. 8. 1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Falodi in civil original suit No. 22/92 whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff- appellant was decreed.

(2.) IT is evident from the plaint allegation that the plaintiff- appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction about the residential house in question alleging to be acquired by his common ancestors along with the ancestors of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The boundary of the house in question has been disclosed in paragraph 2 of the plaint. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it is clearly averred by the plaintiff-appellant that the residential house for which defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had obtained `patta' in their own names are not entitled to obtain `patta' of the said house as the house in question is ancestral.

(3.) MR. R. K. Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously urged before me that although learned lower appellate Court has discussed only issue No. 4 but while discussing issue No. 4 it has taken into account the decision given by learned trial Court on other issues also. I am not impressed with the argument of learned counsel for respondents. I am of the opinion that whenever and wherever an appeal is filed before a appellate Court u/s. 96 CPC the appellate Court is under statutory obligation to formulate the points for determination as envisaged u/o. 41, R. 31 CPC and any breach committed by appellate Court in this regard shall be treated to be substantial error of law and procedure.