( 1 ) VUYYURU Venkata Reddy, the defendant in O. S. No. 370 of 1988, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree made in O. S. 370 of 1988, dated 13. 08. 1996. Karumudi Mangamma, w/o Veera Reddy, the defendant in the said suit died and the legal representatives were brought on record. The said Mangamma filed the suit to declare that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and to render proper accounts in relation thereto. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and DWs. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs. A. 1 to A. 4 and Exs. B. 1 to B. 35 and also recorded the findings and ultimately decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is preferred ( 2 ) SRI K. Suresh Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/defendant had taken this Court through the evidence of DWs. 1 to 6 and also PWs. 1 to 4 and had explained in detail the documentary evidence available on record and had pointed out the way in which the findings had been recorded by the learned Judge and would contend that in a suit of this nature having settled as many as six issues without appreciating both the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, to record reasons in such a fashion is impermissible in law and hence it is a fit matter where the matter may have to remanded to the original Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 3 ) SRI P. Srinivas, the learned counsel representing the present respondents-legal representatives of original plaintiff, while contesting the matter submits that the matter is an old one and though certain of the findings are not so satisfactory, in fact, the learned Judge appreciated the evidence in substance and recorded the findings and hence this Court as appellate court can exercise powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, and can definitely go into the entire material available on record and re-appreciate the evidence and record proper findings and hence the request for remand need be considered at this point of time. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel and perused the evidence available on record and findings recorded by the learned Judge. ( 5 ) IN the light of the submissions, made by both learned counsel the following points emerge for consideration in the present appeal: (i) Whether the agreement of sale dated 10. 6. 1967, can be said to be true, valid and binding in the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether the legal representatives of the plaintiff are entitled to the relief prayed for by the original plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case? (iii) If so, to what relief the parties are entitled to? ( 6 ) POINTS Nos. 1 and 2: The plaintiff who is no more, pleaded in the plaint as hereunder: it was pleaded that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of Karumudi Veera Reddy, who is the husband of the plaintiff. The said Karumudi Veera Reddy died intestate about 40 years back, leaving behind him, the plaintiff and his daughter Mandipati Koteswaramma only as his legal heirs. The daughter N. Koteswaramma has not acquired any right in the property of her father since he died long prior to the commencement of Hindu Succession Act 1956. Since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property after the death her husband. The defendant is the sisters son-law of Karumudi Veera Reddy. Due to old age, the plaintiff has been staying in Kunderu village in her daughters village. The plaintiff has been frequently visiting Numma Village to look after the cultivation of the suit schedule property. The defendant being close relative of the plaintiff has been assisting the plaintiff in cultivating the suit schedule property. For some years, the suit property was kept fallow and in some years the plaintiff with the assistance of the defendant, at her expenses raised Tobacco crop in the suit property. The plaintiff has not leased the suit property either to the defendant or any one. If the crop is raised the plaintiff gets not income of Rs. 2,000/- per year. The plaintiff on 8. 1. 1988 made a publication in Eenadu Daily paper expressing her desire to dispose of the plaint schedule property and so the persons who are interested in purchasing the same can consult her or her advocate. The defendant on 20. 1. If the crop is raised the plaintiff gets not income of Rs. 2,000/- per year. The plaintiff on 8. 1. 1988 made a publication in Eenadu Daily paper expressing her desire to dispose of the plaint schedule property and so the persons who are interested in purchasing the same can consult her or her advocate. The defendant on 20. 1. 1988, published in Eenadu Daily paper that the plaintiff has no right in the plaint schedule property and the persons who purchased the property will not derive any rights at all. On seeing the said publication dated 20. 1. 1988 the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 6. 2. 1988 to the defendant. The defendant replied the same on 13. 2. 1988 with false allegations. It is absolutely false and untrue to state that the plaintiff sold the suit property in favour of the defendant on 10. 6. 1967. It is also not correct to state that N. Koteswaramma is necessary party for the agreement of sale referred above. N. Koteswaramma has not derived any right in the suit property. The plaintiff and her daughter never agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the defendant. The defendant paid Rs. 5,000/- in cash to the plaintiff and her daughter on 10. 6. 1967 and for the balance he executed the pronote in favour of plaintiff. The allegation that the defendant paid the amount on 25. 9. 1969 and that the plaintiff and her daughter returned the pronote with discharged endorsement therein, is wrong. The plaintiff and her daughter never gave any delivery of possession of the suit property on 10. 6. 1967 or on any other date. Still the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property. The agreement of sale dated 10. 6. 1967 referred in para 6 of the reply notice of the defendant are not true and genuine. The said documents must have been fabricated to play fraud on her. The plaintiff for the first time came to know about the fraud of the defendant only on 20. 1. 1988 on which date the defendant made publication in Eenadu Daily paper. The defendant falsely averred adverse possession the defendant is only a trespasser. The said documents must have been fabricated to play fraud on her. The plaintiff for the first time came to know about the fraud of the defendant only on 20. 1. 1988 on which date the defendant made publication in Eenadu Daily paper. The defendant falsely averred adverse possession the defendant is only a trespasser. Taking advantage of the old age of the plaintiff with dishonest intention, to cause loss to the plaintiff, the defendant has made such allegations that the property is sold under the agreement of sale. The plaintiff and her daughter have not executed any agreement of sale at any time in favour of the defendant regarding the sale of the suit property. They have not received any consideration much less Rs. 10,000/- from the defendant at any time. The defendant without any right is trying to usur the property of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit. ( 7 ) THE present appellant-defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement as hereunder: the allegation of the plaintiff that her daughter did not acquire any right is not correct. She is not in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff and her daughter were joint in possession of the suit property prior to 10. 6. 1967 on which date they sold the property under an agreement of sale to the defendant. The suit is bad for non-joinder of her daughter. The defendant purchased the suit property under an agreement of sale dated 10. 6. 1967 executed by the plaintiff and her daughter, having received Rs. 5,000/- in cash and obtained a promissory note for the balance of Rs. 5,000/- out of total consideration of Rs. 10,000/ -. The defendant discharged the said pronote but did not obtained registered sale deed from the plaintiff and her daughter, which are taken advantage of by the plaintiff, only to cause wrongful gain. The defendant admitted about the paper publication and also exchange of notice in between them. He has replied the notice suitably. The plaintiff is not in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property she is not visiting the Nunna village. The allegation that the suit schedule property was kept fallow for some years and for some years Tobacco crop was raised is not correct. The defendant is in possession after 10. 6. 1967 unobstructed and peaceful and continuous. The plaintiff is not in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property she is not visiting the Nunna village. The allegation that the suit schedule property was kept fallow for some years and for some years Tobacco crop was raised is not correct. The defendant is in possession after 10. 6. 1967 unobstructed and peaceful and continuous. The defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession and the plaintiff has lost her title for recovery of possession under Sec. 54-A of the Transfer of Property Act and under Section 27 of the Limitation Act for long absence she is not in possession since 10. 6. 1967. The allegation of the plaintiff that she came to know about the alleged fraud allegedly made by the defendant only on 20. 1. 1988 that is on the date of publication made by the defendant in Eenadu Daily paper is only on after thought. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by time for declaration. The defendant is not a trespasser as alleged by the plaintiff. Valuation of the suit is not correct, the suit is not properly valued. The plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for, on the other hand the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs including on Rs. 600/- claimed by the defendant in legal notice. ( 8 ) THE following issues were settled on the strength of the pleadings:1. Whether the agreement of sale dt. 10. 6. 1967 is true, valid and binding? 2. Whether the defendant entered into possession of the property by virtue of the agreement of sale and protected U/s 53-A of T. P. Act? 3. Whether the defendant perfected title to the property by way of adverse possession and also by virtue of Sec. 27 of the Limitation Act? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the plaint schedule property? 6. To what relief? ( 9 ) THE evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and DWs. 1 to 6 had been recorded; Exs. A1 to A4 and Exs. B. 1 to B. 35 were got marked. The findings had been recorded by the learned Judge in para-6 and ultimately decreed the suit as specified in para-7 of his Judgment. 6. To what relief? ( 9 ) THE evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and DWs. 1 to 6 had been recorded; Exs. A1 to A4 and Exs. B. 1 to B. 35 were got marked. The findings had been recorded by the learned Judge in para-6 and ultimately decreed the suit as specified in para-7 of his Judgment. When several issues had been settled except in cases where there can be commonness of findings relating to one or more of the issues, this practice of recording common findings by the original Court normally may not be in the interest of the parties. It is no doubt true that it cannot be laid down as a hard and fast rule, that where several issues had been settled, original court to record separate findings on each of the issues irrespective of the fact that convenient findings can be recorded by answering two or more issues together. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge recorded certain findings, but however, on careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, except just referring to DWs. 1 to 6 and also the voluminous documentary evidence placed on behalf of the appellant- defendant, findings relating to the rival contentions of the parties had not been recorded, so as to enable this Court either to affirm such findings or reverse such findings. It is needless to say that the way in which the evidence had been appreciated, the findings had been recorded being totally unsatisfactory, this Court is satisfied that the Appellate Court cannot act as original court for the purpose of recording of findings in relation to the evidence available on record. Hence, instead of the Appellate Court acting as original Court for the purpose of recording findings in relation to the evidence available on record by totally re-appreciating the evidence as though this Court is original Court it would be just and proper to make an order of remand. ( 10 ) THE relevant provisions, which may be glanced at in this context are Order 20 Rule 4 and Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions of the same referred to supra read as hereunder: order 20 Rule 4: Judgment of Small Cause Courts- (1) Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon. The provisions of the same referred to supra read as hereunder: order 20 Rule 4: Judgment of Small Cause Courts- (1) Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon. (2) Judgments of other courts:- Judgments of other courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. Order 41 Rule 33: Power of Court of appeal: the Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties, may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are, passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees: Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under Sec. 35-A in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order. ( 11 ) UNDER Order 20 Rule 4 of the aforesaid Code, sub-rule (1) deals with Judgments of a Court of Small Causes and sub-rule (2) deals with Judgments of other courts. It is true that the powers of the appellate Court as specified by Order 41 Rule 33 of the aforesaid Code are sufficiently wide. In Moideen Koya v. Moideen Kutti1 it was held that a Judgment jumbling up all points together and containing a statement that all issues are found in favour of the plaintiff cannot be said to be in conformity with Order 20 Rule 4 (2) of the Code. In Moideen Koya v. Moideen Kutti1 it was held that a Judgment jumbling up all points together and containing a statement that all issues are found in favour of the plaintiff cannot be said to be in conformity with Order 20 Rule 4 (2) of the Code. His Lordship N. Kumarayya, C. J. , speaking on behalf of the Full Bench in Aziz Ahmed Khan v. I. A. Patel2 while dealing with the aspect of Order 20 Rule 4 (2) of the Code and the duty of the Court held: 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, C. P. C. at all. Wehreas 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 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 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. ( 12 ) THIS Court had given anxious consideration to the reasons which had been recorded by the learned Judge and also the way in which a couple of findings had been recorded in relation to the issues and the appreciation of evidence available on record. The appeal must be allowed on that basis also. ( 12 ) THIS Court had given anxious consideration to the reasons which had been recorded by the learned Judge and also the way in which a couple of findings had been recorded in relation to the issues and the appreciation of evidence available on record. Even if the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code to be kept in mind, this Court is satisfied that the Judgment made by the learned Judge cannot be said to be in conformity with Order 20 Rule 4 (2) of the Code. In the light of the same, an order of remand would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 13 ) POINT No- (iii): In the light of the findings recorded above, the Judgment and Decree are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Vijayawada, to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Inasmuch as the suit is an old one, top priority to be given for disposal of the suit. Though, there is ample evidence, proper findings had not been recorded, but however, inasmuch as an order of remand is being made, parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence, if they desire to do so. No order as to costs. ( 14 ) AT this stage, Sri Srinivas, the learned counsel, representing the legal representatives of the original plaintiff made a request to fix time for early disposal. It is made clear that the learned Judge to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.