Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 66923 (KAR)

SRI.NINGAIAH v. SRI M.HANUMANTHA RAJU

RSA/672/2022 · 2025-08-06

V Srishananda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 672 OF 2022 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NINGAIAH S/O LATE GAVISIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S 1(A). SMT. NANJAMMA, W/O LATE NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANNIKUPPE MAJRE, SHANTHAPURA VILLAGE, SINGONAHALLI POST, HEBBURU HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. SRI. ANDANIAH S/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT BANNIKUPPE MAJRE, SHANTHAPURA VILLAGE HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 120, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H.R. SANJEEVE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 AND: 1. SRI. M. HANUMANTHA RAJU, S/O LATE HUCHARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA D/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SMT. KAMALAMMA D/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT BANNIKUPPE MAJRE, SHANTHAPURA VILLAGE HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 120, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISHA N, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; VIDE ORDER DATED NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.55/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2017 PASSED IN OS No.713/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. H.R. Sanjeeve Gowda, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Girisha N., learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Appellants are the defendants No.1, 3 and 5 before the Trial Court in O.S. No.713/2013 which was filed for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 23.11.2011 in respect of the immovable property which is a vacant land bearing Sy.No.109/2 to the extent of 23 acres 12 guntas out of the total extent of 11 acres 34 ghanta situated in Bannikuppe Village, Hebbur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, bounded on East by : land of Kumar, West by : Government road, North by : land of Maria and South by : the remaining portion of the land in Sy.No.109/2 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 3. Suit was contested by the defendants by filing detailed written statement. Learned Trial Judge has raised necessary issues and after due trail, suit was decreed partly and directed the defendants to return the advance consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of agreement till date of payment. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.55/2021. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after notifying the defendants, heard the arguments of the parties in the light of the appeal grounds and on cumulative consideration of the factual aspects and the point of law, allowed the appeal and decreased the suit of the plaintiff in entirety. 6. A Cross Appeal said to have been filed by the defendants and since there was no court fee paid on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 cross appeal, the cross appeal was not considered by the First Appellate Court on merits. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Court, present second appeal came to be filed by the defendants on the following grounds:  The appellants further submit that, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2021 is arbitrary, illegal and not in accordance with law and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside.  The appellants further submit that, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2021 is opposed to the principles of natural justice and all probabilities.  The appellant further submits that, Hon'ble First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2021 has gravely erred in considering the facts and circumstances available on record as per law and blindly passed the impugned judgment and decree by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court without assigning any valid reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court, hence the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2021 is liable to be set-aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022  The appellant further submit that, it is a well settled law that, while considering and passing the judgment and decree in any appeal it is a mandatory to the Hon'ble Courts to consider the cross objections / cross appeal filed by the other side in any appeal as per law, but unfortunately the Hon'ble First Appellate Court has not at all take any pain look into the cross objections / cross appeal filed by the appellant no.1 and 5 herein and consider the same as per law in the above said appeal and passed the impugned judgment and decree by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 herein by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court, this fact itself is clearly goes to shows that, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court is opposed to the principles of natural justice and it is a contrary to law and further it leads to miscarriage of justice on this ground alone the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside.  The appellants further submit that, in the cross objections / appeal, the appellant no.1 and 5 herein have specifically contended that, the Hon'ble Trial Court has gravely erred in appreciating the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record with regard to the issue no.3 and answering the same in the affirmative and thereby the finding given by the Hon'ble Trial Court pertaining to the issue no.3 is opposed to the principles of natural justice and the said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 finding is not supported by any legal evidence and opposed to the facts and circumstances available on record and further it is contrary to the documents available on record and the facts, since the Hon'ble Trial Court has answered the issue no.3 as affirmative by holding that, the respondent no.1 herein was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract only on the basis of the legal notice i.e. Exhibit P3 issued by the respondent no.1 herein to the appellants herein and the respondent no.2 and 3 and Exhibit - P4 i.e. the reply notice given by the appellants herein in spite of specific settled law that, the fact of the ready and willingness on the part of the plaintiff should be proved by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance by giving cogent evidence with regard to the capacity of the plaintiff to pay the remaining balance sale consideration from the date of the agreement, till than passing of the judgment and decree, but in the present case admittedly the respondent no.1 herein has not led either any oral evidence or any documentary evidence to discharge the burden of the proving of the said issue except averring in the plaint at paragraph-5 that, the plaintiff is always and even now ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in terms of the registered agreement to sell dated 23-11-2011 by paying the balance sale consideration subject to condition the first appellant should get the survey sketch prepared and inform the plaintiff and thereby the finding given by the Hon'ble Trial Court and answering the issue no.3 as affirmative is not in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 accordance with law and it is opposed to the principles of natural justice and all legal probabilities and the said finding is liable to be set-aside in the eye of law, but unfortunately the Hon'ble First Appellate Court has not at all taken any pain to looking to the said cross objections /appeal filed by the appellant no.1 and 3 herein and considering the same and passed the appropriate order and thereby the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is suffering from various legal infirmities and further it leads to miscarriage of justice and thereby viewing from any angle the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set-aside.  The appellants further submit that, the Hon'ble First Appellate Court has gravely erred in considering the documents and facts and circumstances and as-well-as the oral and the documentary evidence available on record and passed the impugned judgment and decree which is highly unsustainable in the eye of law and thereby the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court is liable to be set-aside.  The appellants further submit that, it is a settled law that, merely because of dismissal of the suit for partition filed by one of the co sharer for non prosecution, will not taken away the right of the coparceners, but the Hon'ble First Appellate Court while considering the said vital aspect, has gravely erred in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 considering and appreciating the said fact and come to the wrong conclusion that, any application has been produced by the appellant herein filed by the co sharer by seeking restoration of the suit and thereby the appellants herein and the respondent no.3 and 4 herein are the owners of the suit schedule property and thereby they can executed the sale deed, this findings given by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is highly opposed to the principles of natural justice and the evidence and the documents available on record and thereby the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is liable to be set-aside.  The appellants further submit that, in spite of filing of the cross objections/cross appeal by challenging the findings given by the Hon'ble Trial Court on issue no.3 by the appellants, the Hon'ble First Appellate Court without taking any pain to looking to the cross objections / cross appeal filed by the appellants herein has categorically mentioned at para-15 of the impugned judgment passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court that, "the appellants / defendants not filed any cross objection / cross appeal challenging the findings of the learned trial judge, In view of the same the Hon'ble First Appellate Court proceed to examine whether plaintiff is suited for the relief of specific performance of contract in view of the contention of the defendant no.1 that, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and defendant no.1 to 5 have no absolute right to convey the property in favour of plaintiff and thereby this fact itself is clearly goes to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 shows that, the Hon'ble First Appellate Court has not at all followed the procedures laid down under the law in considering all the facts and circumstances available on record and more over the findings given by the Hon'ble Trial Court to the effect that, the appellants herein have not filed any cross objections/cross appeal by challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court is contrary to the order sheet maintained by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court and as- well-as the contrary the documents and facts and circumstances available on record and thereby the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law in any angle and the same is liable to be set aside.  The appellants further submit that, even though there is no partition deed or any other documents has been placed before either the Hon'ble Trial Court or the Hon'ble First Appellate Court to show that, there was a partition taken place in the family of the appellants and the respondent no.2 and 3 herein and other family members, the Hon'ble First Appellate Court has come to the wrong conclusion on the basis of some revenue documents that, there was a partition in the family of the appellants and the respondent no.2 and 3 herein and other coparceners and the suit O.S.No.207/2016 filed by some co-owners for the relief of partition and separate possession and such other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule property and other properties against the very same appellant no.1 and others and the said suit came to be dismissed subsequent to the passing of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 the judgment and decree for non prosecution and thereby there is no impediment for the appellants and the respondent no.2 and 3 to execute the absolute registered sale deed, but it is well settled under the law that, merely because of the dismissal of the suit for partition filed by the co-owners for non prosecution will not take away the right and interest in respect of the ancestral properties owned and possessed by their predecessors and thereby the finding given by the  Hon'ble Trial Court and passing the impugned judgment and decree is contrary to law and facts and circumstances available on record and further it leads to miscarriage of justice and hence the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is liable to be set-aside.  The appellants further submit that, the Hon'ble First Appellate Court without considering the cross objections/cross appeal filed by the appellants herein has gravely erred in considering and appreciating the position of law laid down under section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act and blindly come to the wrong conclusion that, the respondent no.1 herein has proved the issue no.3 i.e. ready and willingness to perform his part of the contract on the basis of Exhibit P3 i.e. the legal notice issued by the respondent no.1 herein to the appellants and the respondent no.2 and 3 and on the basis of the appellants herein have not raised any issues with regard to the ready and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, but the said findings given by the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 Hon'ble First Appellate Court is opposed to the principles of natural justice and it is opposed to the facts and circumstances available on record and it is a well settled law that, the plaintiff in every suit for specific performance, it is a mandatory to the plaintiff to prove the issue with regard to the ready and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract by way of giving oral evidence and as-well-as documentary evidence, but admittedly the respondent no.1 herein has not produced any iota of documents either before the Hon'ble Trial Court nor the Hon'ble First Appellate Court to prove the issue with regard to ready and willingness on the part of the plaintiff and more over he has not produced any document to prove the said issue, but in spite of it both the Hon'ble Trial Court and as-well-as the Hon'ble First Appellate Court have come to the wrong conclusion that, the respondent no. I herein/plaintiff has proved the issue with regard to the ready and willingness by way of producing the Exhibit-P3 and 4 Le legal notice and as-well-as the reply notice and come to the wrong conclusion and passed the impugned judgment and decres and thereby the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside.  The appellants further submit that, it is a well settled law that, irrespective of the defense taken by the defendants in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff should prove the issue with regard to the ready - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 and willingness to perform his part of the contract, but the plaintiff has not proved the said issue either by way of giving oral evidence or documentary evidence, but the Hon'ble First Appellate Court has come to the wrong conclusion that, since the appellant /defendant has not raised any objection with regard to the ready and wiliness on the part of the plaintiff in the reply notice, hence it is presumed that, the plaintiff has proved the issue that, he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and thereby the finding given by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court while passing the impunged judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is contrary to law and thereby the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is liable to be dismissed.  The appellants further submit that, there is no position has been handed over to the respondent no.1 herein by the appellants and the respondent no.2 and 3 herein under the said agreement and subsequent to the passing of the judgment and decree by the Hon'ble Trial Court, the appellants herein and the respondent no.2 and 3 herein have deposited earnest / advance money along with the interest as ordered by the Hon'ble Trial Court much earlier to the filing of the regular appeal before the Hon'ble First Appellate Court by raising a loan from some private financial institutions by paying high rate of interest, but unfortunately the Hon'ble First Appellate Court has not - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 at all considered the said vital aspect and pass the appropriate order as per section 20 of the Specific Relief Act by exercising the discretionary power and thereby the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is liable to be set- aside.  The appellants further submit that, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2021 is not a speaking order and it is one sided order.  The appellants further submit that, the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is passed the impugned judgment and decree without following the procedures laid down under the law.  The appellants further submit that, the Hon'ble First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the law and the principles laid by various decisions of various Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the passing of the impugned judgment and decree.  The appellants further submit that, the Hon'ble First Appellate Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree in a hurried manner without examining any materials and documents available on record. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022  The appellants further submit that, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is others-the oppose to law, equites, perverse, capricious and arbitrary and cook revening and hence the same te liable to be quashed  The appellants further submit that, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is exaggerated and arbitrary version and the records are liable to be examined by this Hon'ble Court based on which the impugned judgment and decree has been passed. 8. Sri. H.R. Sanjeeve Gowda, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that judgment of the First Appellate Court is illegal and arbitrary and sought for allowing the appeal. 9. He would further contend that the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court without considering the material aspects in proper perspective, blindly decreed the suit of plaintiff in entirety resulting in miscarriage of - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 10. He also emphasised that it is the mandatory duty of the First Appellate Court to consider the cross objections/cross appeal in accordance with law and should have called for the payment of court fee on the cross appeal. As the contrary without affording such an opportunity, dismissing cross appeal decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in entirety has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 11. In the appeal, following substantial questions of law have been raised by the appellants: " i. Whether the Hon'ble Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that, the respondent/plaintiff herein has proved the issue No.3 i.e., "whether the plaintiff proves that, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract without any evidence available on record with regard to that aspect ? - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 ii. Whether the Hon'ble Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that, the respondent/plaintiff herein has proved the issued No.4 i.e., "whether the plaintiffs proves that, the defendants fail to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale dated 23. 11-2011? iii. Whether the Hon'ble Trial Court erred in considering and appreciating the facts and the circumstances and the evidence available on record by applying its mind as per law in answering the issue No.3 and 4 ? iv. Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court without considering the cross appeal/cross objections filed by the appellants herein is sustainable in the eye of law? vi. Whether the Hon'ble First Appellate erred in coming to the conclusion that, the respondent herein has proved the issue with regard to the ready and willingness to perform his part of the contract in terms of the agreement of sale in the absence of any evidence with regard to that and coming to the conclusion that, the respondent herein is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract based on agreement of sale dated 23-11-2011? vi. Whether the Hon'ble First Appellate Court erred in coming to the conclusion and confirming the findings given by the Hon'ble Trial Court with regard to the issue - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 that, "whether the defendants failed to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale dated 23-11-2011"? vii. Whether the Hon'ble First Appellate Court erred in re-appreciating the evidence available on record along with the facts and circumstances available on record ? ix. Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is sustainable in the eye of law? 12. Per contra, Sri. Girisha N., learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgment. He would further contend that learned Trial Judge having held that the agreement and payment of advance consideration been proved, failed to notice that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his portion of the contract and without any justifiable reason decreed the suit of the plaintiff by ordering only refund of the advance consideration with interest resulting in miscarriage of justice which compelled the plaintiff to approach the First Appellate Court seeking decree of the suit in entirety. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 13. He further argued that learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly considered by settled principles of law and decreed the suit of the plaintiff which is perfectly justified and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 14. He would also invite the attention of this Court, but non consideration of the cross appeal by the defendant is just and proper as no Court fee was paid by the appellant challenging the finding recorded by that Trial Judge that the agreement of sale and payment of advance consideration has been established in accordance with law by placing cogent evidence on record and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff was successful in establishing the agreement to sell dated 23.11.2011, so - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 also the payment of advance sale consideration was established. 17. Legal notice was also issued by the plaintiff and there is an unequivocal statement made by the plaintiff that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform their portion of the contract. 18. Despite the same, learned Trial Judge ignoring the material evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by ordering refund of advance consideration with interest. 19. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal in RA No.55/2021. 20. It is the contention of the appellants who are defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 that they had filed a cross appeal and learned Judge without considering the cross appeal, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff has resulted in miscarriage of justice. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 21. In order to appreciate the said aspect of the matter, coordinate Bench of this Court directed the appellants to place on record the proof of payment of Court fee on the cross appeal on the last date of hearing. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that no Court fee was paid before the First Appellate Court. Therefore, there is no document to show that the Court fee has been paid on the cross appeal. 23. Taking note of the said aspect of the matter, the contentions urged in the appeal memorandum that non consideration of the cross-objection or cross-appeal by the First Appellate Court has resulted in injustice be countenanced in law. 24. Nevertheless, on the question of merits of the matter, in the light of the substantial questions of law, this Court considered the appeal as to whether the appeal needs to be admitted for further consideration. While considering the said aspect of the matter, this Court - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 bestowed its best attention to the material evidence on record. 25. Admittedly, plaintiff is successful in establishing that the sale agreement has been duly executed by the defendants and they have also received sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance sale consideration. 26. Extent of the property is a portion of the entire property in Sy.No.109/2 which is measuring 11 acres and 34 guntas. To the extent of 23.02 guntas, the sale consideration mentioned in agreement to sale vide Ex.P1 is just and proper at the time of sale agreement. 27. Further, the plaintiff examined the witnesses to prove the agreement. Readiness and willingness is also proved by the plaintiff by placing cogent evidence on record inasmuch as the cross-examination of PW.1 establishes that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform their portion of the contract. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 28. Under such circumstances, learned Trial Judge in the guise of exercising the discretionary power, without there being any positive material on record as to why the specific performance is to be refused, decreed the suit in part in ordering the return of the advance sale consideration with interest at 18% per annum. 29. It is pertinent to note that when the plaintiff have established all necessary ingredients including the readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as is contemplated under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, the Courts in the guise of exercising the discretionary power, cannot ordinarily refuse the specific enforcement of the contract unless there are compelling circumstances placed on record by the defendants which would act as hindrance to specific enforcement of the contract of agreement to sell. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30800 RSA No. 672 of 2022 30. The same was reappreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in entirety. 31. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants in this appeal, even in the absence of any finding on the cross-appeal, this Court is of the considered opinion that same does not merit for further consideration. 32. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussions, following: ORDER i. Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC,KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT: BHK