ORDER : This is plaintiff’s appeal assailing the Judgment and Decree of First Appellate Court, allowing the appeal in part and setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and thereby, passing a modified decree for partition and separate possession. For convenience, the parties will also be referred to by their rank in the suit. 2. This case shocked the conscience of this Court about the perfunctory manner in which, Sri D.Y. Basapur, Judge of First Appellate Court has decided the appeal filed under S.96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC. 3. In view of the controversy at hand, it is unnecessary to state the facts giving rise to this appeal in detail, except to note that the suit was filed by the appellant to pass decree of partition, separate possession, declaration and mesne profits against the respondents. Defendant Nos. 2 and 5 filed the written statements. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.2. Based on the pleadings, Trial Court raised 12 issues and 2 additional issues. The plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and examined two witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P30. Defendant No.2 got examined himself as DW1 and defendant No.5 got examined himself as DW2 and a witness was examined as DW3. Exs.D1 to D48 were marked. Trial Court decreed the suit in part and held that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled for partition and separate possession of their ½ share each, in the suit properties. Exchange deed dated 23.09.1998 executed by defendants 2 to 5 in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property was declared as a colourable document and the claim for mesne profits was rejected. 4. Feeling aggrieved, defendants filed R.A. No.194/2012 in the Dist. Court, Belgaum. Additional Dist. and Sessions Court having been established at Chikodi, the appeal was transferred to the Court of VII Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, sitting at Chikodi. By the Judgment in question, the appeal was allowed in part, setting aside “the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.10/1998 dated 04.08.2012, which was not the Judgment and Decree assailed in R.A. No.194/2012.” Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed this second appeal. 5. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, sitting at Chikodi. By the Judgment in question, the appeal was allowed in part, setting aside “the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.10/1998 dated 04.08.2012, which was not the Judgment and Decree assailed in R.A. No.194/2012.” Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed this second appeal. 5. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the First Appellate Court Judge has perused the pleadings and the evidence and applied his mind to the aspects that may have to be considered in the appeal filed under S.96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC? (ii) Whether the First Appellate Court has merely and mechanically modified the findings of fact rendered by the Trial Court without an independent assessment of the record of the suit? (iii) Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the lower Appellate Court violates the guidelines under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC? (iv) Whether there is an injudicious act and improper judicial approach by the Judge of the First Appellate Court in the matter of deciding the appeal? 6. Sri M.G. Naganuri, learned advocate, took serious exception to the perfunctory manner in which the Judge of First Appellate Court has decided the case. He submitted that the appeal having not been decided in the manner required by Order XX Rule 5 or Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, there is no Judgment in the eye of law. He submitted that the Judge of First Appellate Court is wholly wrong in allowing the appeal and reversing the well considered Judgment of the Trial Court. According to Sri M.G. Naganuri, that on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and considering it in the proper perspective in the light of the surrounding circumstances, Trial Court decreed the suit and there is no scope of whatsoever nature for the First Appellate Court to interfere with the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit. He contended that the Judge of First Appellate Court, without even perusing the Trial Court record and the reasons recorded for decreeing of the suit has illegally interfered with the findings of fact. He submitted that there being a callous approach to the case by the Judge, the impugned Judgment being capricious and wholly illegal, deserves to be set aside. 7. He submitted that there being a callous approach to the case by the Judge, the impugned Judgment being capricious and wholly illegal, deserves to be set aside. 7. Sri Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath, learned advocate, having regard to the manner in which the Judge of First Appellate Court has decided the case, very fairly submits, that, he is unable to defend the impugned Judgment and Decree. He submitted that the appeal having not been decided in accordance with law, the case may be remanded to First Appellate Court for consideration and decision afresh. 8. Perused record of the case in detail and considered the submissions. The record of the case shows that the defendants in O.S. No.107/1998, feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 04.08.2012 passed by the Trial Court, filed R.A. No.194/2012 in the Dist. Court, Belgaum. The appeal having been assigned to the VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Belgaum, sitting at Chikodi, upon hearing was allowed in part on 10.11.2014. In the preamble portion of the Judgment rendered by the Judge of First Appellate Court, it has been stated that, the appeal was filed to set aside the decree passed in “O.S. No.10/1998” dated 04.08.2012, on the file of Prl. Civil Judge, Athani, instead of in “O.S.No.107/1998”. Though, there are only 5 defendants in the suit, who all filed the appeal, in para 8 of the Judgment rendered, it has been shown as “the appellant-defendant No.23(b), 23(c), 25(a) and 26, came up in this appeal.” Though it was stated that the appeal was filed on various grounds, the grounds raised in para 8 are nothing but, “the general grounds”. Though the appeal was by the 5 defendants, in para 10 of the Judgment rendered, it has been shown as, “respondent No.3 and 28 are dead. Their LRs are brought on record. Respondent No.9, 12, 16, 17, 21, 27, 30 to 32 are remained absent and placed exparte.” Despite the appeal having been filed within the period of limitation and no I.A. was filed for condonation of delay, para 11 of the Judgment rendered is ‘with regard to the filing of I.A.1 under S.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay and the respondents as having filed the objections.’ In para 13 of the impugned Judgment, three points were raised for consideration, ‘including one relating to condonation of delay which was not even sought for’. The other two points are general points only. Though point No.1 did not arise for consideration, paras 15 and 16 of the Judgment rendered is ‘with regard to delay being condoned and consequently, the answering of Point No.1 in the affirmative.’ Para Nos.15 to 23 and part of para No.24 of the Judgment rendered is nothing but ‘copying and pasting of the Judgment passed by the same Judge on 04.09.2014 in R.A. No.330/2011, which arose out of the Judgment and Decree dated 16.08.2011 passed in O.S. No.49/2001, by the Sr. Civil Judge, Hukkeri’. It is to be stated that the Judgment and Decree passed in R.A. No.330/2011 has been assailed in R.S.A. No.100887/2014 and is pending. 9. In view of the above, the moot point for consideration is, whether there is lack of judicial approach to the case by the Judge of First Appellate Court and the impugned Judgment and Decree is perverse, capricious and illegal? 10. It is trite that an appeal is continuation of a suit. An appeal, thus, is rehearing of the main matter and Appellate Court can reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire evidence – oral as well as documentary – and can come to its own conclusion. 11. Order XLI CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Rule 31 lays down that the Judgment of Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. The said provision having come up for consideration in innumerable cases, its meaning and scope has been explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. 12. In Madhukar & Others Vs. Sangram & Others, (2001) 4 SCC 756 , Apex Court has laid down principles and parameters as to how first appeal is to be decided. It has been held, that sitting as a Court of first appeal, duty is cast on the Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. Sangram & Others, (2001) 4 SCC 756 , Apex Court has laid down principles and parameters as to how first appeal is to be decided. It has been held, that sitting as a Court of first appeal, duty is cast on the Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. It has been emphasised that the first appeal being a valuable right, the parties have to be heard on questions of law and on facts and the Judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide by giving reasons in support of the findings. 13. In B.M. Narayana Gowda Vs. Shanthamma (Dead by LRS.) & Another, (2011) 15 SCC 476, Apex Court has held, that the first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and, therein, all questions of fact and law decided by the Trial Court are open for consideration and where the First Appellate Court finds the Trial Court Judgment to be unsatisfactory and proposes to set aside the impugned Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court ought to carefully examine facts and law and give cogent reasons for setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. 14. In Shasidhar & Others Vs. Ashwini Uma Mathad & Another, (2015) 11 SCC 269, after survey of the previous decisions with regard to duty of First Appellate Court, Apex Court has held as follows: “21. Being the first appellate court, it was, therefore, the duty of the High Court to decide the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred on it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code mentioned above. It was unfortunately not done, thereby, causing prejudice to the appellants whose valuable right to prosecute the first appeal on facts and law was adversely affected which, in turn, deprived them of a hearing in the appeal in accordance with law.” 15. In Vinod Kumar Vs. It was unfortunately not done, thereby, causing prejudice to the appellants whose valuable right to prosecute the first appeal on facts and law was adversely affected which, in turn, deprived them of a hearing in the appeal in accordance with law.” 15. In Vinod Kumar Vs. Gangadhar, (2015) 1 SCC 391 , with regard to duty of First Appellate Court and the proper mode for disposal of the first appeal filed under S.96 CPC and the guidelines in Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, it has been held, that it is the duty of First Appellate Court to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 16. Thus, it is clear that while deciding the appeal, First Appellate Court must consider the evidence on record, oral and documentary and also the questions of law raised before it and at the same time, it has the duty to consider the reasons given by Trial Court, against whose decision the appeal has been filed and, thereafter, decide the appeal by passing a speaking and reasoned Judgment, keeping in view the guidelines in Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. Three requisites should normally be present before an Appellate Court reverses a finding of the Trial Court, viz.: (i) It applies its mind to reasons given by the Trial Court; (ii) It has no advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses; and (iii) It records cogent and convincing reasons for disagreeing with the Trial Court. 17. The manner of exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Court while deciding an appeal has been succinctly made clear by the Apex Court in the case of K. Anbazhagan Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 6 SCC 158 , as follows: “39…. The appellate court has a duty to make a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case. The evidence brought on record in entirety has to be scrutinised with care and caution. It is the duty of the Judge to see that justice is appropriately administered, for that is the paramount consideration of a Judge. The said responsibility cannot be abdicated or abandoned or ostracised, even remotely, solely because there might not have been proper assistance by the counsel appearing for the parties. It is the duty of the Judge to see that justice is appropriately administered, for that is the paramount consideration of a Judge. The said responsibility cannot be abdicated or abandoned or ostracised, even remotely, solely because there might not have been proper assistance by the counsel appearing for the parties. The appellate court is required to weigh the materials, ascribe concrete reasons and the filament of reasoning must logically flow from the requisite analysis of the material on record. The approach cannot be cryptic. It cannot be perverse. The duty of the Judge is to consider the evidence objectively and dispassionately. The reasonings in appeal are to be well deliberated. They are to be resolutely expressed. An objective judgment of the evidence reflects the greatness of mind-sans passion and sans prejudice. The reflective attitude of the Judge must be demonstrable from the judgment itself. A Judge must avoid all kind of weakness and vacillation. That is the sole test. That is the litmus test.” (emphasis supplied) 18. In the present case, the Judge of First Appellate Court has not referred to an iota of evidence which was adduced by the parties and there is absolutely no indication in the Judgment as to how he has come to the conclusion that the Judgment passed by Trial Court is required to be modified. None of the submissions of the parties have been considered. There is a total goby to the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and the socalled Judgment rendered does not show any ground or reason on account of which the Judgment of Trial Court containing a finding of fact was modified. The Judge of lower Appellate Court has reached the conclusion without recording any reason in support of the conclusion. Thus, it is clear there is serious error of procedure and total lack of judicial approach in deciding the appeal. The impugned Judgment is perverse, capricious and illegal. The appeal having been decided in a very perfunctory manner, Sri. M.G. Naganuri, learned advocate, is justified in criticizing the impugned judgment as the result of callous and an unjudicious act. 19. Since the appeal has not been decided in accordance with law, in my considered opinion, there is need for consideration of appeal by First Appellate Court, on questions of both fact and law. M.G. Naganuri, learned advocate, is justified in criticizing the impugned judgment as the result of callous and an unjudicious act. 19. Since the appeal has not been decided in accordance with law, in my considered opinion, there is need for consideration of appeal by First Appellate Court, on questions of both fact and law. In the result, the appeal is allowed and impugned Judgment and Decree of First Appellate Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to First Appellate Court for decision afresh by keeping in view the observations made supra. In order to expedite the hearing and decision, the parties are directed to appear before First Appellate Court on 30.07.2016 and receive orders. Lower Appellate Court shall decide the appeal before 04.02.2017. The lower Courts records be sent immediately to the First Appellate Court. The Registrar General is directed to place a copy of this Judgment on the personal record of Sri D.Y. Basapur and another copy before Hon’ble The Chief Justice for orders on the administrative side.