@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. This Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of
this Court dated 20.04.1992, confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Erode in O.S. No. 115 of 1976.
2. The plaintiff, who lost before the trial Court and also before the learned single Judge of this Court, has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 32,644
with interest and for costs, against the 1st defendant personally and against the joint family assets in the hands of the defendants.
3. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent executed Ex. A.1 promissory note for Rs. 15,000 in favour of one Ranganayagi, wife of S.
Ganapathi of B.P. Agraharam Village, Erode Taluk on 1.09.1970, promising to repay the said sum either to the said Ranganayagi or her order on
demand with interest at 21.60 per cent per annum and that the 1st defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 500 towards interest on 7.04.1973 and made
an endorsement to that effect on the back of the promissory note and thereafter did not pay the balance amount due on the said promissory note.
According to the appellant/plaintiff, respondents 1 and 2 constitute members of an undivided Hindu coparcenary and the 3rd respondent is the
female member of the family, that the family possessed of ancestral properties, which are enjoyed in common, that the suit debt was borrowed by
the 1st respondent for the joint family and the respondents 2 and 3 have enjoyed the benefits of the borrowed amount, that they being members of
the joint family, are also liable to discharge the debt from and out of the assets of the joint family and that since the amount has not been paid, the
suit has been laid for the recovery of the same.
4. The suit was resisted by the respondents, contending that the respondents have not received any amount from the said Ranganayagi, that no
consideration was passed under the suit promissory note and that the 1st respondent was borrowing amounts as hand loans for his business from
S. Ganapathi, the husband of the said Ranganayagi and that for the due repayment of those hand loans, the said Ganapathi had obtained the 1st
defendants signature in two blank promissory notes and also two signatures on the back of those two promissory notes. It is also their further case
that the said Ganapathi has filled up one such promissory note and used the same for the present suit and that when the transactions between the
1st defendant and the said Ganapathi were over, the said Ganapathi evaded to return the said promissory notes. Thus, it is contended that no
consideration has passed under the suit promissory note. It is also contended that the signature on the back of the blank promissory note has been
utilised for the endorsement of payment of Rs. 500 on 7.4.1973. It is also contended that it is false to allege that the defendants 1 and 2 constitute
members of an undivided Hindu coparcenary and that the defendants are not liable to repay any amount under the suit promissory note. It is also
contended that Ranganayagi had no sufficient funds to advance such a huge amount. They also denied that the plaintiff got assignment of the suit
promissory note from the said Ranganayagi for proper and valuable consideration.
5. The trial Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration ?
2. Whether the endorsement dated 7.4.1973 is true?
3. Whether the assignment in favour of the plaintiff is true?
4. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 are members of a joint family of which the first defendant is the manager?
5. To what relief are the parties entitled?
On 14.02.1980 issue No. (1) was deleted and recast as follows :-
Whether the first defendant executed the suit pronote and if so whether the same is not supported by consideration?
On 21.03.1980, the following additional issues were also framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is not a holder in due course?
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
6. On the side of the plaintiff, Exs. A.1 to A. 12 were marked and Exs. B.1 to B.17 were marked on the side of the defendants. On the side of the
plaintiff, four witnesses were examined, which included Ranganayagi and the plaintiff and on the side of the defendants, the 1st defendant has
examined himself as D.W. 1, apart from examining one Muthuswamy as D.W. 2.
7. The trial Court, in paragraph 25 of its judgment, has observed that the said Court is not able to give a positive finding that Ex. A. 1 should have
been prepared on blank promissory note that was said to have been passed to D.W. 1. and that it is not possible to hold that P.W. 1 could have
lent Rs. 15,000 under Ex. A.1. Under the circumstances, the Court held that Ex. A.1 is not supported by consideration and the said issue was
answered against the plaintiff. On issue No. (2), the Court held that Ex. A.2 endorsement dated 7.04.1973 is not true. On issue No. 3, the Court
has held that the assignment of debt on 7.12.1975, as alleged by P.Ws. 1 to 3 is not true and he found the said issue against the plaintiff. On
additional issue NO. 2, the said Court held that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On issue No. 4, the Court has observed
that it is not necessary to give any finding on the said issue and the said issue was left open. In the result, the suit was dismissed with costs.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed A.S. No. 234 of 1982, which was also dismissed by Abdul Hadi, J.
on 20.04.1992.
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge, the plaintiff has preferred the above Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15
of the Letters Patent.
10. We have heard the arguments of Mr. T.R. Mani, learned senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sethurathinam, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents. We have perused Exs. A.1, A.2, A.3 and A. 12. The matter was argued on 19.03.1997 and also today. At the
time of the argument, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court is
not on the right lines and direction and also does not satisfy the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31, C.P.C., which stipulates that the judgment of the
Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision, etc. In this
case, it is also pointed out that the learned single Judge has not formulated the points for determination and stated the decisions thereon and,
therefore, the mandatory provisions of Order 41, Rule 31, C.P.C. have not been adhered to. Therefore, according to him, the judgment of the
learned single Judge is liable to be set aside, and the matter has to be remitted to another learned single Judge of this Court.
11. We have gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge. We are of the view that the judgment is defective, in that the learned Judge
has not followed the provisions under Order 41 Rule 31, C.P.C. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, it is also
incumbent on the part of the Appellate Court to raise points for determination just to clear up the pleadings and focus the attention of the court and
of the parties on the specific and rival contentions, which arise for decision. One of us (AR. Lakshmanan, J.) sitting single, in Kannammal Vs.
Kuppanna Gounder, , following a Division Bench of this Court in Visalakshi Ammal v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal 1989 2 L.W. 414 and for the
reasons stated in the order, has set aside the judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore and remitted back the matter to the said
Court, to dispose of the appeal afresh on merits and in accordance with law and after affording opportunity to both the parties, within three months
from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
12. The same view was taken by this Bench in the judgment dated 27.02.1997 rendered by us in Palanisami Pillai v. The Commissioner, Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department, Madras-34 and Anr., (l.P.A. No. 16 of 1993). In that case, similar contention was
raised before us. While considering the said submission, this Bench has observed in paragraph 12 of the judgment as follows :-
The object of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, in making it incumbent upon the appellate court to raise the points for determination and to state reasons
for the decision is to clear up the pleadings and focus the attention of the court and of the parties on the specific and rival contentions which arise
for determination as also to offer the litigant parties an opportunity of knowing and understanding the grounds upon which the decision proceeds
with a view to enable them to exercise, if they see fit, and are so advised, the right of second appeal conferred by Section 100 CPC. On a perusal
of the judgment of the learned single Judge, it appears to us that the reasons for his findings would not satisfy Order XLI CPC. This Court being
the first appellate Court, and being the final court of facts, it is incumbent on it to consider all the evidence adduced by the parties in the case.
Learned single Judge has not even turned to the side of the plaintiffs who filed voluminous documents marked as Exs. A. 1 to A. 33. The parties to
the suit or appeal, in our opinion, have a right to know the reasons that have led the Judge to his conclusions. The learned single Judge (Bellie, J.)
has not considered any facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced both oral and documentary by both sides, but merely recorded a finding
by accepting the evidence of DWs. 1 & 2 without himself bestowing any consideration thereon, it can surely be, said that this is not a judgment in
the eye of law. In the instant case, the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is exhaustive and well reasoned. The learned single Judge when
he reversed the judgment, there should be enough material to show that the Court of appeal has considered it fully and formed its own opinion. In
the present judgment, there is no discussion at all about the documentary evidence filed and marked as Exs. A1 to A33. The law imposes upon the
court of appeal the imperative duty and obligation of giving an adequate and satisfactory judgment such as is required by law and it is the duty to
explain its reasons for so doing more especially when the court of first instance has gone so fully into the facts and the reasons for the conclusions
arrived at.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned single judge and
remit the matter to another learned single Judge of this Court for consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced by
both the parties, both oral and documentary. As observed by us, the law imposes upon the court of appeal the imperative duty and obligation of
giving an adequate and satisfactory judgment as is required by law and it is the duty of the Court to explain its reasons for so doing, more
especially when the court of first instance has gone so fully into the facts and the reasons for the conclusions arrived at.
13. Therefore, we set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1992 and remit the matter to a learned single Judge of this Court with a request
to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible since the suit was laid in the year 1976 on a promissory note executed in the year 1970. The
registry is to take appropriate orders from the Honourable Acting Chief Justice. The Court fee paid in memorandum of Letters Patent Appeal shall
be refunded to the appellant. No costs.
