High Court of Karnataka Allows Second Appeal in Money Loan Dispute — Sets Aside Appellate Court's Decree for Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Failure to Frame Points for Determination and Lack of Proper Reappreciation of Evidence Renders First Appellate Court's Judgment Unsustainable.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 14:51:55

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant-defendant filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in R.A.No.29/2017. The first appellate court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff and set aside the trial court's judgment and decree dated 06.03.2017 in O.S.No.11/2016, thereby granting the relief sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had sued for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- allegedly lent to the defendant on 19.03.2013 at 2% interest per month. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed that decision. The High Court examined the first appellate court's judgment and found that it did not frame points for determination as mandated by Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The appellate court merely summarized the evidence and agreed with the trial court's reasoning without independently reappreciating the evidence. The High Court held that the first appellate court, being the final court of fact, must frame points for determination and reappreciate the evidence. Failure to do so constitutes a substantial question of law. Consequently, the High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the first appellate court's judgment, and remanded the matter back to the first appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing it to frame points for determination and reappreciate the evidence. The parties were directed to appear before the first appellate court on 12.08.2024.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - First Appeal - Order 41 Rule 31 CPC - Points for Determination - The first appellate court must frame points for determination arising from the grounds of appeal and decide the appeal on those points. Failure to do so vitiates the judgment. (Para 10)

B) Civil Procedure - First Appeal - Reappreciation of Evidence - The first appellate court, being the final court of fact, must independently reappreciate the evidence and record its findings. Mere agreement with the trial court without independent analysis is insufficient. (Para 11)

C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - Non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and failure to reappreciate evidence constitute substantial questions of law warranting interference in second appeal. (Para 12)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the first appellate court's judgment is sustainable when it failed to frame points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and did not properly reappreciate the evidence?

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 12.12.2017 in R.A.No.29/2017, and remanded the matter back to the first appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The first appellate court was directed to frame points for determination and reappreciate the evidence. The parties were directed to appear before the first appellate court on 12.08.2024.

Law Points

Order 41 Rule 31 CPC
Section 100 CPC
Duty of First Appellate Court
Reappreciation of Evidence
Points for Determination

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 79

R.S.A. No.216/2018 (MON)

2024-07-12

H.P. Sandesh

Sri H.N. Shashidhara, Senior Counsel for Sri H.S. Suhas (for appellant); Sri T. Seshagiri Rao (for respondent)

Annegowda

M.T. Hanumegowda

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in a money loan recovery suit.

Remedy Sought

The appellant-defendant sought to set aside the first appellate court's judgment and decree which had allowed the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest.

Filing Reason

The appellant-defendant challenged the first appellate court's judgment on the ground that it failed to frame points for determination and did not properly reappreciate the evidence, violating Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli) dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.2017 in O.S.No.11/2016. The first appellate court (V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya) allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 in R.A.No.29/2017, setting aside the trial court's decree and granting relief to the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the first appellate court's judgment is sustainable when it failed to frame points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC? Whether the first appellate court properly reappreciated the evidence as required of a final court of fact?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the first appellate court did not frame points for determination and merely summarized the evidence without independent reappreciation, rendering the judgment illegal. The respondent supported the first appellate court's judgment, contending that it was based on proper appreciation of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The first appellate court, being the final court of fact, must comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by framing points for determination arising from the grounds of appeal and must independently reappreciate the evidence. Failure to do so constitutes a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, warranting interference in second appeal.

Judgment Excerpts

The first appellate court being the final court of fact ought to have framed the points for determination and also ought to have reappreciated the evidence. The judgment of the first appellate court is not in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the same is not sustainable.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.11/2016 for recovery of money. The trial court dismissed the suit on 06.03.2017. The plaintiff appealed in R.A.No.29/2017, which was allowed by the first appellate court on 12.12.2017. The defendant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC, which was heard and reserved on 04.07.2024 and decided on 12.07.2024.