ORDER 1. THE PLAINTIFF SINCE DECEASED AND NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE APPELLANTS"), FILED OS. NO. 228 OF 1980 IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT MUNSIFF, DEVAKOTTAI AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE RESPONDENTS"), FOR DECLARATION OF HIS TITLE TO THE SUIT PROPERTY AND FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS. 2. THE DEFENCE PUT UP BY THE RESPONDENTS WAS THAT THEY HAD BECOME THE OWNERS OF THE SUIT PROPERTY BY WAY OF A SALE EXECUTED IN THEIR FAVOUR BY THE POWER-OF-ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE APPELLANTS. SINCE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS NEITHER PRODUCED NOR PROVED, THE SUIT FILED BY THE APPELLANTS WAS DECREED. THE RESPONDENTS BEING AGGRIEVED FILED AN APPEAL BEING AS NO. 26 OF 1982 BEFORE THE SUB-COURT, DEVAKOTTAI. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SAID APPEAL, THE RESPONDENTS FILED AN APPLICATION (IA NO. 16 OF 1983) UNDER ORDER 41. RULE 27 CPC FOR PRODUCING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY WAY OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ALLEGEDLY EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF. THE AFORESAID APPEAL AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT WAS DISMISSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT. 3. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT DISMISSING THEIR APPEAL AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 27 CPC, THE RESPONDENTS FILED SECOND APPEAL (BEING SA NO. 578 OF 1998) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS IN WHICH THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE FRAMED: "(I) WHETHER THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT WAS RIGHT IN DISMISSING IA NO. 16 OF 1983 SEEKING PRODUCTION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE SECOND DEFENDANT WHO HAD CONTROL OVER THAT DOCUMENT HAD NOT TAKEN STEPS FOR SUCH PRODUCTION? (II) ARE THE COURTS BELOW CORRECT IN REFUSING TO ADMIT A TYPED COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, ESPECIALLY WHEN NECESSARY GROUNDS HAD BEEN MADE OUT FOR LETTING IN SECONDARY EVIDENCE? (III) ARE THE COURTS BELOW CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE SUIT AS FRAMED IS MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT A PRAYER TO SET ASIDE THE SALE? (IV) ARE THE COURTS BELOW CORRECT IN CASTING THE BURDEN ON THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASED UNDER EXT. A-1 IS A JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY?" 4. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS NOT ANSWERED QUESTIONS (I) AND (II). (IV) ARE THE COURTS BELOW CORRECT IN CASTING THE BURDEN ON THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASED UNDER EXT. A-1 IS A JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY?" 4. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS NOT ANSWERED QUESTIONS (I) AND (II). HOWEVER, QUESTION (III) HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF IN A VERY PERFUNCTORY MANNER BY OBSERVING THUS: " .. THE FIRST RESPONDENT HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE FOR DECLARATION OF HIS TITLE IGNORING EXT. B-1 SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN HIS CAPACITY AS MANAGER OF THE FAMILY DURING THE ABSENCE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT, IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST DEFENDANT. THE SUIT AS FRAMED WITHOUT A PRAYER FOR SETTING ASIDE THE SALE IS ALSO NOT MAINTAINABLE." QUESTION (IV) HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS BY HOLDING THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE SUIT PROPERTY WAS A JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY WAS ON THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS ALTHOUGH IT WAS THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS A JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY. S. WE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DEALT WITH AND DISPOSED OF BY THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT WAS UNDER A DUTY TO ANSWER ALL THE FOUR QUESTIONS WHICH HAD BEEN FRAMED BY IT BY ASSIGNING COGENT REASONS AS TO HOW THE FINDINGS OF THE COURTS BELOW WERE DEFECTIVE OR UNSUSTAINABLE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS APPEAL MERITS ACCEPTANCE AND REMITTANCE OF THE CASE TO THE HIGH COURT FOR A FRESH DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. NOTHING STATED HEREINABOVE SHALL BE TAKEN AS AN EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. THE HIGH COURT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO DECIDE THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THIS ORDER. ALL CONTENTIONS ARE LEFT OPEN TO BE AGITATED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. 7. THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 8. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT THE ORIGINAL RECORD OF THE CASE TO THE HIGH COURT FORTHWITH.