Reasoned first appeal judgment required under CPC; mechanical concurrence with trial court led to remand for fresh decision.

A first appellate court exercising jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC must independently examine the evidence, consider the rival contentions, frame points for determination, and give reasons for its conclusions as required by Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. A general concurrence with the trial court, without addressing the appellant's grounds or the supporting material, fails to satisfy that statutory duty and is not a proper adjudication in law. Because the appellate judgment was a mechanical affirmation rather than a reasoned decision on the issues raised, the matter was remitted for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first appellate court was bound to record independent findings with reasons on the issues and contentions raised before it, and whether its failure to do so warranted remand of the first appeal for fresh disposal.

Analysis: The right of first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a valuable right, and the appellate court is required to consider the evidence and the rival contentions and to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision as mandated by Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A mere general concurrence with the trial court, without dealing with the appellant's grounds and the supporting material, does not satisfy the statutory duty of a first appellate court. Since the impugned appellate judgment did not independently address the issues or the arguments raised and was essentially a mechanical affirmation of the trial court's decision, it could not be treated as a proper adjudication in law.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the first appellate court for fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law, and the appellant succeeded on the procedural challenge to the appellate judgment.

---