APHC010019422008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO FIRST APPEAL NO: 75 OF 2008 Between: 1. Karlapalem Venkata Krishna Gokul, S/o late Vara Prasad R/o D.No. 4-9-78, 3rd line Patel Nagar, Bapatla Guntur Dist. 2. Karlapalem Vamsikrishna, S/o Syam PRasad R/o D.No. 4-9-78, 3rd line Patel Nagar, Bapatla Guntur Dist. 3. Karlapalem Syam PRasad, S/o late Gokula Krishna Dattu R/o D.No. 4-9- 78, 3rd line Patel Nagar, Bapatla Guntur Dist. 4. Karlapalem Lakshmi Suseela, W/o late Gokula Krishna Dattu R/o D.No. 4- 9-78, 3rd line Patel Nagar, Bapatla Guntur Dist. ...Appellants/Defendants AND 1. Karlapalem Venkata Nagabhushana Rao, S/o late Suryanarayana R/o D.No. 4-1-34/1, 4th line Lakshmipuram, Guntur Town Guntur District. (Died) per LRs R.2 to R.6 ...Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Karlapalem Ratnavalli W/o Late Venkata Nagabhushana Rao 3. Karlapalem Venkata Siva Prasad S/o Late Venkata Nagabhushana Rao 4. Ponduri Padmavathi W/o Ponduri Venugopal 5. Choragudi Usha Rani W/o Ch. Srinivasa Rao 6. R. Anuradha W/o R. Rajasekhar [R.2 to R.6 are brought on record as LRs of deceased R.1 As per Court Order dated 13-7-2018 made in I.A.No.2/2018] ...Respondents Appeal against the judgment & decree dt. 14-11-07 made in OS No. 78/04 on the file of the Court of the VIII Addl. District Judge & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur IA NO: 1 OF 2008(ASMP 113 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to discharge me as the guardian of 2nd appellant / 2nd defendant and he may be permitted to pursue his case before this Hon'ble Court IA NO: 2 OF 2008(ASMP 246 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and judgment passed in the suit OS No. 78/04 on the file of the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur dt. District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur dt. 14-11-07 pending disposal of the above appeal IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 2574 days in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent on record and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to bring the following persons i.e., 2 to 6 respondents namely 1.Karlapalem Ratnavalli, 2.Karlapalem Venakat Siva Prasad, 3.Ponduri Padmavati, W/O.Ponduri Venugopal, 4.Choragudi Usha Rani, W/O.Choragudi Srinivasa Rao, and 5.Anuradha W/O.Rajasekahar on record as the legal Representatives being wife son and daughters of the deceased sole respondent Viz, Karlapalem Venkata Nagabushana Rao as the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the above appeal and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the sole respondent in the above appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellants: M RADHA KRISHNA, REPRESENTING I GOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: ATCHUTUNI RAMA MOHAN RAO The Court made the following: Judgment: The appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 14-11-2007 in O.S.No.78 of 2004 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, Guntur District. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of registered Will dated 04-3-1994 said to have executed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2, and consequential possession of plaint-A schedule properties, mesne profits and possession of the suit schedule properties. 2. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows: It is pleaded that plaint-A and B schedule properties originally belonged to the ancestors of the plaintiff and one Karlapalem Suryanarayana was the owner of the property and on his death, the property devolved upon his four sons i.e. Gokula Krishna Dutt, Rama Rao, Ranga Rao and Venkata Bhushana Rao and in the partition, the suit schedule properties fell to the share of Ranga Rao, who died intestate leaving behind his wife Rajabai and Rajabai also died intestate on 18-12-2003. After the death of Rajabai, the defendants proclaimed that she executed a registered Will, which in fact was not true. Hence, the suit was filed for cancellation of the alleged Will and consequential declaration of possession of the properties and for mesne profits. 3. Brief averments in the common written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 4 are as follows: It is contended that the document or Will was true one and they cannot seek for cancellation when the plaintiff is not the executant of the document and in fact, Rajabai executed the disputed Will, on 04-3-1994, in a sound and disposing state of mind in her own handwriting and narrated the manner and circumstances in which the Will was executed and it was further referred to the conduct of parties during the life time of Rajabai to show that out of love and affection, the document was executed and accordingly they prayed to dismiss the suit. 4. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the Will dated 04-3-1994 said to have been executed by Rajabai in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is true and valid and whether it is liable to be cancelled and whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential declaration and possession of plaint-A schedule properties ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits on item No.2 of plaint-A schedule properties for crop year June to December, 2003 ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title for B-schedule properties and for possession on of it ? and (4) To what relief ? 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked. 6. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in decreeing the suit, the defendants 1 to 4 have preferred the present appeal suit. 8. During the pendency of appeal suit before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the 2nd appellant was declared as major by discharging the guardianship i.e., the 1st appellant as per Court order dated 07-02-2008 in A.S.M.P.No.113/2008; so also, the sole respondent/plaintiff died and respondents 2 to 6 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 1st respondent as per Court order dated 13-7-2018 made in I.A.No.2/2018. 9. Heard Sri M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel, representing Sri I. Gopala Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Sri Atchutuni Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. The appellants/defendants raised as many as 28 grounds in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the learned trial Judge framed as many as four issues and he has not answered any of the issues framed by discussing the evidence of both the parties and the learned trial Judge has not followed the provision under Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C, for short) which is against law and that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for hearing of both sides and pronouncing the judgment by the trial Court as per the procedure prescribed in the C.P.C. He also further submits that after remanding the matter back to the trial Court, there is no need to record additional evidence by the trial Court. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents would contend that though the trial Court has not answered each issue separately, the trial Court has given a good reasoning in para-23 of its judgment and there is no need to remand the matter back to the trial Court, since the learned trial Judge has given a reasoned judgment and that the appeal suit may be dismissed. 12. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit and the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: (1) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable under Order XX, Rule 5 of C.P.C ? (2) Whether the judgment of trial Court is contrary to Order XIV, Rule 2 of C.P.C ? (3) Whether the learned trial Judge i.e., the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, has given reasons in the judgment by referring evidence of each witness of both the parties and each issue framed by the learned trial Judge and whether the judgment and decree of trial Court needs any interference ? and (4) To what extent ? 13. Points 1 and 2: Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable under Order XX, Rule 5 of C.P.C ? and Whether the judgment of trial Court is contrary to Order XIV, Rule 2 of C.P.C ? The appellants herein are the defendants in the first appeal. The appellants have filed the first appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.78 of 2004 by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur. The relief sought by the plaintiff in the main suit in O.S.No.78 of 2004 is that for cancellation of the Will dated 04-3-1994, which was registered on 22-9-1994 in the Sub-Registrar’s office, said to have been executed by Rajabai in favour of the defendants 1 and 2, and consequential possession of the plaint-A schedule properties, mesne profits and recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties. 14. The issues framed by the learned trial Judge in the suit proceedings are reiterated as follows: (1) Whether the Will dated 04-3-1994 said to have been executed by Rajabai in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is true and valid and whether it is liable to be cancelled and whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential declaration and possession of plaint-A schedule properties ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits on item No.2 of plaint-A schedule properties for crop year June to December, 2003 ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title for B-schedule properties and for possession on of it ? and (4) To what relief ? 15. Order XX, Rule 5 of C.P.C laid down as follows: “5. Court to state its decision on each issue.—In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issue is sufficient for the decision of the suit.” Order XIV, Rule 2 of C.P.C laid down as follows: “2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.—(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to— (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other isseus until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.” 16. In the judgment of the trial Court, except few statements made by D.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence, the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.4 was not even discussed in the judgment by the trial Court. The material statements in the chief-examination and cross-examination of D.Ws.1 to 3 also were not even discussed by the trial Court in its judgment. As stated supra, few statements made by D.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence as mentioned by the trial Court in its judgment are reiterated as follows: “14. … … … admittedly Rajabai was resident of Bapatla and Will was said to be executed at Chilakaluripet and D.Ws.2 and 3, the attestors, are no other than the colleagues of D.W.1 the profounder of the Will and there are interpolations and corrections in the Will and it is admitted by D.W.1 that the executants had no acquaintance with the identifying witnesses, who were present at the time of registering Ex.B-2 Bill. … … …” “18. … … … D.Ws.2 and 3 stated that she had scribed the document. However, stated that there were no corrections. But on the face of the documents there were interpolations. According to D.W.1 the interpolations were made then and there and document was presented before the Registrar only once. … … … the explanation given by D.W.2 is that after entire document was written the executant has noted some mistakes and made corrections and as the pen previously used was not proper she has taken another pen. Now, according to D.W.1, as per the instructions of the executant a draft was got prepared and was brought to the executants and after going through the draft she prepared the fair Will Ex.B-2. … … … According to D.W.1 as per the instructions of the advocate the word Chilakaluripet was written in the place of residence (Bapatla).” 17. The learned trial Judge, except stating few statements of D.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence as stated supra, the evidence of other witnesses plaintiff and D.W.4 was not even discussed in the judgment. As noticed supra, the trial Court has not even discussed the material statements made by D.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence in chief-examination and cross-examination in the judgment itself. The main relief sought by the plaintiff is that to cancel the Will dated 04-3-1994 said to have been registered on 22-9-1994 in the suit proceedings and the trial Court not even answered in the said judgment that whether the trial Court has granted the relief of cancellation of Will dated 04-3-1994 executed by Rajabai or the said relief was granted/rejected. The trial Court not even discussed in its judgment under what provision of law, the alleged Will is liable to be cancelled. As seen from the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff has paid the Court fee on the said relief, but the learned trial Judge has not even decided the said issue and also the said relief. Admittedly, the testatrix is only party to the Will and the plaintiff is a third party to the suit document i.e. Will, having framed the specific issue on the cancellation of Will, it is not even discussed by the learned trial Judge whether the said relief is granted or rejected. 18. As stated supra, the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.4 was not even discussed by the learned trial Judge in the judgment and material admissions of D.Ws.1 to 3 in chief-examination and cross-examination in their evidence was not even discussed in the judgment. In the result portion of the judgment, the trial Court simply mentioned that the plaintiff is claiming mesne profits for the previous crop year June, 2002 to December, 2003 for which there is no evidence and that the relief of mesne profits was rejected for which also, the trial Court has not assigned any reasons. As seen from the plaint averments, the primary relief sought by the plaintiff is that to cancel the Will dated 04-3-1994 and for consequential relief of possession of plaint-A schedule properties and a Court fee of Rs.12,026/- was also paid by the plaintiff under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. But, the said relief was not yet decided by the learned trial Judge in the judgment i.e. whether the cancellation of Will was granted or rejected. The judgment given by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, in the civil suit in O.S.No.78 of 2004 does not confirm to the provisions of Rule 4(2) of Order XX of C.P.C at all. As per the provisions of Rule 4(2) of Order XX C.P.C., while pronouncing the judgment, the Court do not act mechanically. The Court should apply its mind to the facts of the case and the points at issue and give a reasoned judgment thereon so that not only their own conscience may be satisfied but also the litigants should have satisfaction that all their evidence has been evaluated by the trial Court and their contentions and arguments duly considered. In the case at hand, the above principles are lacking in the judgment of the trial Court. 19. The learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur i.e., the trial Court, without following the mandatory requirements in the Code of Civil Procedure, pronounced the judgment without deciding all the issues framed by it. The duty of the trial Court is to decide each issue by referring material evidence of all the witnesses of both the parties to the suit, but the learned trial Judge has decided the suit on his own style without following the mandatory requirements as provided in C.P.C. The duty cast upon the civil courts is that they are bound to follow the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. 20. The learned counsel for respondents would contend that this Court being a first appellate Court is empowered to discuss the evidence of each witness under Section 96 of C.P.C and give a finding on each point. 21. The learned counsel for appellants placed a reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Om Prakash v. State of H.P.1 wherein the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court held as follows: “13. The learned Counsel for the defendants have impressed upon us that we may examine the conclusion arrived at by the District Judge by referring to the evidence on record and give findings on each issue in our capacity as first appellate Court, as we are dealing with Regular First Appeal. We are unable to accept this submission as it will not be just and fair and it will deprive the losing party of a right to appeal before this Court.” The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Sathyanath v.Sarojamani2, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “34. The objective of the provisions of Order 41 Rules 24 and 25 is that if evidence is recorded by the learned trial court on all the issues, it would 1 AIR 2001 Himachal Pradesh 18 2 (2022) 7 SCC 644 facilitate the first appellate court to decide the questions of fact even by reformulating the issues. It is only when the first appellate court finds that there is no evidence led by the parties, the first appellate court can call upon the parties to lead evidence on such additional issues, either before the appellate court or before the trial court. All such provisions of law and the amendments are to ensure one objective i.e. early finality to the lis between the parties.” In the case at hand, the trial Court has not even recorded the findings on each issue. If the learned trial Judge has given findings on each issue, then only the first appellate Court has advantage of the findings on each issue, otherwise it will deprive the losing party of a right to appeal before this Court. In the aforesaid case law in Om Prakash (1 supra), it was further held by the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court as follows: “12. In the present case, trial Court has framed all the issues and was supposed to give separate findings on each issue, as admittedly the findings upon any one or more of them are not sufficient for the decision of the suit. By simply enumerating the evidence and law and thereafter giving conclusion whereby the case of one party is accepted and the other party is rejected, is no judgment in the eyes of law. In other words, the judgment which does not contain the reasons or grounds on the basis of which the Judge has come to his conclusion/decision for passing a judgment and decree on the points in issue or controversy, is vitiated. It is all the more necessary, when the judgment is by the Court of fact and is appealable, to avoid unnecessary delay and protracted litigation. The Supreme Court in Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Gustavo Ranato da Cruz Pinto, AIR 1985 SC 736, has held in paragraph 27 as under: “In a matter of this nature where several contentions factual and legal are urged and when there is a scope of an appeal from the decision of the Court, it is desirable as was observed by the Privy Council long time ago to avoid delay and protraction of litigation that the Court should, when dealing with any matter dispose of all the points and not merely rest its decision on one single point.” Therefore, by not deciding issue Nos.1 to 5 separately by referring to material evidence on each issue for and against the parties and giving reasons for its acceptance or rejection, the impugned judgment is vitiated.” In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Pratima Reddy3, a Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows: “23. As discussed above, the judgment under appeal does not refer to any of the issues, does not assess the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and none of the issues are answered as required under Order XX. In the absence of any consideration by the Court below on any of the issues, this Court, as a first appellate Court does not have the benefit of the views and findings of the trial Court on each of the issues. The judgment under appeal cannot be, therefore, said to be a judgment as envisaged under Order XX CPC. The judgment and decree under appeal, therefore, are liable to be set-aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.” In the case of Ahmed Ali v. Shaik Ahmed4, a Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows: “4. … … … It seems to us, therefore, that the case must be investigated and decided by the trial Court after arriving at its findings on all issues of fact and law including the issues regarding the validity of the sale deed. We would like to impress it upon subordinate Courts that in all cases open to appeal, it is the duty of the trial Courts to give their findings on all issues raised between the parties in order to avoid remands. ………………………………….. “ The learned counsel for appellants placed reliance on Dhirendranath Chandra v. Apurba Krishna Chandra5. In that case, the High Court of Patna held as follows: “6. … … … A plain reading of Rule 2 will show that ordinarily even if the case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court is bound to pronounce judgment on all issues. This ordinary rule is subject to only one exception which has been provided in sub-rule (2) according to which if the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on issue of law only and if that issue of law relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law 3 2009(6) ALD 396 (DB) 4 AIR 1955 Hyd 268 5 AIR 1979 Patna 34 for the time being in force the court may try such issue first. It is, therefore, clear that a departure from the ordinary rule provided in sub-rule (1) of R. 2 can be made by the Court only in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (2) and even in these circumstances the Court has only a discretion that it may try an issue of law relating to the points mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) as a preliminary issue before framing other issues. … … …” Admittedly, in the case at hand, four issues were framed by the trial Court calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact and the evidence shall be confined to the issues and pleadings. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding issue-wise would be told precisely how the dispute was decided. In the case at hand, the above principles are lacking in the judgment of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur i.e., the trial Court. The learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman (Dead) through LRs6. The facts in the said case law relate to cancellation of sale deed. The learned counsel for respondents placed another reliance on Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam7, wherein it is held as follows: “10. … … … Although Section 63 of the Succession Act requires that a will has to be attested at least by two witnesses, Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that a document, which is required by law to be attested, shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been examined for the purpose of proving its due execution if such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the court. In a way, Section 68 gives a concession to those who want to prove and establish a will in a court of law by examining at least one attesting witness even though the will has to be attested at least by two witnesses mandatorily under Section 63 of the Succession Act. … … …” 6 2025 SCC Online SC 892 7 (2003) 2 SCC 91 The learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on Kartan Kaur v. Milkho8, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “16. In Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur [(1977) 1 SCC 369 : AIR 1977 SC 74] this Court held that “in cases where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally, is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the court's conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the Will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the Will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach satisfaction unless the party which sets up the Will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the Will”. In the present case at hand, the issue of cancellation of Will sought by the plaintiff, though a Court fee has been paid by the plaintiff and the primary relief of cancellation of Will deed is not even decided by the trial Court and the trial Court has not even answered whether the said relief was awarded or rejected. Even the trial Court has not even discussed Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act, which provisions are relevant to deal with the genuineness of the Will. The learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh9. The facts in the said case are that execution of Power of Attorney by the son of mortgagor, therefore, the facts and circumstances in that case are different to the instant case. In the case of Aziz Ahmed Khan v. I.A. Patel10, a Full Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows: “8. The irregularities committed by the trial Court do not stop at that. The judgment that it has given does not conform to the provisions of Rule 4(2) of Order XX of the CPC at all. Whereas a judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, and the decision thereon, we search in vain for any of these essentials in the impugned judgment. It is no judgment at all. The provisions of Rule 4(2) have a set 8 (1996) 11 SCC 626 9 AIR 1971 SC 761 10 AIR 1974 AP 1 purpose. The form is designed to ensure that while pronouncing the orders or judgments, the Courts do not act mechanically. They should apply their minds to the facts of the case and the points at issue and give a reasoned judgment thereon so that not only their own conscience may be satisfied but also the litigants should have satisfaction that all their evidence has been evaluated and their contentions and arguments duly considered. This is of vital importance inasmuch as the whole edifice of confidence of the litigants in Courts is built upon the quality of judgments. The Courts, therefore, have to necessarily take care that their judgments conform to the provisions of law and are products of sound reasoning. In the instant case the judgment of the trial Court which we have extracted above is no judgment at all. The appeal must be allowed on that basis also.” On considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law and for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not followed the procedure prescribed under Order XX, Rule 5 and Order XIV, Rule 2 of C.P.C., and the purport of these provisions is that the trial Court after framing issues is supposed to give its finding or decision with reasons upon each separate issue. It is also the duty of trial Judges, while deciding civil suits, to evaluate the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties to the suit. The primary duty of trial Judges while deciding civil suit is that they must build confidence among the litigants in Courts, upon the quality of judgments and the trial Court has to take necessary care that their judgments conform to the provisions of law and are product of sound reasons. In the present case, the judgment of the trial Court, which I have narrated supra, is no judgment at all. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, I consider that the trial Court failed to comply with the requirements of Order XX, Rule 5 of C.P.C., and Order XIV, Rule 2 of C.P.C. Points 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 23. Point No.3:- Whether the learned trial Judge i.e., the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, has given reasons in the judgment by recording evidence of each witness of both the parties on each issue framed by the learned trial Judge and whether the judgment and decree of trial Court needs any interference ? In view of my findings on points 1 and 2, as stated supra, the learned trial Judge has not given reasons in the judgment by referring the evidence of each witness of both the parties on each issue framed by the trial Court and the learned trial Judge has not even decided the primary relief of cancellation of the Will, though a specific issue has been framed on that aspect. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court has to be set aside and the appeal suit has to be allowed and the suit has to be remanded back to the trial Court i.e., the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, by giving a direction to the trial Court to afford an opportunity to both the parties to submit arguments on the issues framed by the then learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur and to give a reasoned judgment on merits, by discussing the material evidence of each witness on each issue by following the provisions of Order XX, Rule 5 of C.P.C and Order XIV, Rule 2 of C.P.C., without influencing by the findings in its earlier judgment dated 14-11-2007. The entire exercise shall be completed within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 24. Point No.4:- To what relief ? In the result, the appeal suit is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 14-11-2007 passed in O.S.No.78 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to afford an opportunity to both the parties to submit arguments on the issues framed by the then learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur and to give a reasoned judgment on merits by discussing the material evidence of each witness on each issue by following the provisions of Order XX, Rule 5 of C.P.C and Order XIV, Rule 2 of C.P.C., without influencing by the findings in its earlier judgment dated 14-11-2007. The entire exercise shall be completed within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Registry is hereby instructed to transmit the entire record in O.S.No.78 of 2004 forthwith to the trial Court i.e., the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 2. One CC to SRI. I GOPAL REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. ATCHUTUNI RAMA MOHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT VGKRJ DATED:16/09/2025 ORDER AS NO. 75 OF 2008