Mupparaju Ramaiah (died), by L.R. vs Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple and Others

Eswara Prasad, J.—The first respondent, Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Mupparajuvaripalem, filed in O.S. No. 185/78 in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, against the first appellant, who died during the pendency of the second appeal, for rendition of accounts. The said suit was decreed and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

The case of the first respondent is that the first appellant was the Managing trustee of the temple from the year 1957 to 78 and that he failed to render accounts for the said period. In the written statement filed by the first appellant, who was the first defendent in the suit, it was his plea (sic)t the temple lands were in the possession of tenants, that he was never a possession of the lands, that he is not liable to render any account, and that the suit was barred by limitation. Necessary issues were framed by the trial court and the suit was decreed, basing on certain admissions of the first defendant. The learned III Addl. District Judge, Guntur, dismissed the appeal filed by the first defendant, concurring with the findings of the trial Court.

The main submission of the larned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellate court did not consider the evidence on record and did not come to any independent conclusions, but merely quoted large portions of the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal, without applying its mind and without grappling with the questions involved in the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that though the appellate court quoted extensively from the judgment of the trial court, it was correct in dismissing the appeal. He invited me to re-appraise the evidence in the matter and took me through the findings of both the courts.

A perusal of the judgment of the learned Judge shows that he did not apply his mind to the questions involved in the appeal. The preamble of the judgment shows that neither the respondents nor their Counsel was present on the date of hearing and that they were set ex parte. The point for consideration framed is of a general nature as to whether the judgment of the lower court is correct in passing the preliminary decree and whether there are just grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. It is therefore clear that the learned Judge did not address himself to any specific points arising for consideration in the appeal. I have gone through several paragraphs in the judgment of the appellate court and I find that most of the sentences in the judgment of the appellate court were mere repetitions of the judgment of the trial court. Even at the stage of admission of this appeal, Jeevan Reddy J., (as he then was) observed that the judgment is a faithful reproduction of the judgment of the trial court. I am in entire agreement with the observation of the learned Judge. The Judgment of the appellate court is mere re production of the judgment of the trial court and it is clear that the learned Judge did not apply his mind while disposing the appeal.

The first appellate Court being the final court on questions of fact, is bound to independently assess the evidence and come to an independent conclusion. When the judgment is an affirming one, it may not be necessary to give an elaborate reasoning, but it is necessary that the appellate court should apply its mind and come to independent conclusions, even while dismissing the appeal. The Judgment under appeal is highly unsatis-factory. It only shows that the appeal was formally disposed of without application of mind. Such a perfunctory disposal leads to wastage of judicial time and the time of the litigants as well.

I cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel for the respondents that I should re-appraise the evidence and come to my own conclusions. It is for the first appellate court to give its findings after a proper appreciation of the evidence. The appeal is therefore allowed and remanded to the first appellate Court, namely, III Addl. Dist. Judge, Guntur, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the III Addl. Dist. Judge, Guntur on 22-7-91. The costs of this appeal shall abide by the result of the appeal before the learned Dist. Judge. The court-fee paid on the memorandum of second appeal shall be refunded to the appellant. (A copy of this judgment shall be communicated to the learned Judge who rendered the judgment under appeal wherever he is, if still in service. Original records be sent to the court below within tea days.)