SRI RANGANATHA THATHACHARIAR Vs. VEERAVALLI RAJAGOPALACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 and 5, who are appellants in the lower Court are interested in this appeal. The plaintiff's action was for the recovery of possession of certain properties which he claimed to have succeeded to on the death of a qualified owner on the ground that he was the nearest reversioner when the succession opened. Defendants 2 and 5 were interested only in a single item of property in the schedule item 1. The appellate Court has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is said that defendants 2 and 5 did not know of the date of the hearing and in any case were not in a position to adduce evidence. It would appear that they afterwards applied to the trial Court for setting aside the decree pissed against them and for being allowed to adduce such evidence as they had with regard to the issues in which they were interested; but that application was rejected. On appeal the District Judge has written a judgment which I cannot help characterizing extremely unsatisfactory and altogether slipshod. It does not satisfy the requirements of a judgment as laid down in the Civil P.C. The points for determination are not set out, the decision of the Court is not given and as for reasons, none at all have been attempted to be given. It does not appear that the learned District Judge even appreciated the nature and scope of the various issues that arose for determination in the case. As very properly pointed out by Mr. Srinivasagopalachari, the learned Counsel for the appellant, there were only two sentences in the whole of the judgment which could be regarded as containing the judgment of the Court. These are: the first sentence in para. 9 which is as follows: On the evidence on record this Court does not find reason to disagree with the decision, and para. 10 which is to the following effect: The appeal is dismissed with costs.

(2.) I feel quite satisfied that this is a case in which there is absolutely no indication whatever of the lower appellate Court having brought a judicial mind to bear on the decision of the trial Court with, regard to the various points that arose for determination. It seems to me that, having regard to the conclusion I have arrived at, it is not necessary to labour this point any further. The judgment of the lower appellate Court cannot possibly be accepted, the dismissal of the appeal by that Court is set aside and the case is remanded to that Court for fresh hearing and disposal.

(3.) I may also incidentally refer to the omission by that Court even to advert, amongst other things, to one important question raised by the present appellant who was also appellant before it, namely one with regard to the order for costs made by the trial Court. In a suit in which a reversioner impleads various alienees as party defendants, if the judgment should go against the alienees, it is the established practice and in consonance with the reason of the thing that any costs that may be allowed to the plaintiff should be, so far as each set of defendants is concerned, proportionate to the value of the property in which such set of defendants may be interested. The order for costs made by the trial Court is a very remarkable order and I cannot but regard such an order as passed per in curiam. The order for costs is one to the effect that all the defendants, except the few that are mentioned, were made liable for the entire costs of the suit. It is very strange that a party who was interested in property valued only at Rs. 100 should, for the sin of having entered into a transaction with respect to it, be required and ordered to pay costs to the extent of several hundreds of rupees as the costs of the action, and it is much stranger still that, though there was a special ground of appeal to the appellate Court with regard to this matter, and though I have no doubt whatever the Court must have had its attention drawn to the point, the Court should have failed even to advert to this ground. In the result the appeal is allowed and the case is remanded, as I have already said, to the lower appellate Court for fresh hearing and disposal.