JUDGMENT Dr. A.K. MISHRA, J. - This letters patent appeal has been preferred by the substituted legal heirs of the plaintiff against the judgment dated 30.09.1996 of the learned Single Judge in F.A. No.386 of 1983 wherein and whereunder the preliminary decree dated 13.05.1983 in a partition suit bearing No.T.S. 59 of 1980 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jajpur was reversed resulting dismissal of the suit. 2. The facts in brief, shorn of detail and necessary for the disposal of this intra-court appeal lie on a narrow compass. Upendra, the common ancestor of the parties had three sons, namely, Panchanan, Basudev and Dasarathi and three daughters, namely, Suma, Uma and Phula. Basudev had two sons, namely Krushna and Niranjan. Dasarathi had two sons, namely, Bishnu and Prahalad. Upendra died in the year 1976. 3. Upendra had owned joint family property of Ac.9.47, 1 Kadi 123 Biswas of land. During the period from 1929 to 1974 he had acquired 9 ½ acres of land in his name exclusively. There was a mutual partition in the year 1972. By gift deed dated 30.07.1974 Upendra had transferred Ac.4.97.3 links of land in favour of the sons of Basudev and Dasarathi, who were defendant nos. 3 to 6 in the original suit. Two sons of Upendra, namely, Basudev and Dasarathi filed Title Suit No.38 of 1977 against their brother Panchanan and others for partition of the joint family property except lands measuring Ac.4.97.3 links covered under the gift deed dated 30.07.1974. The above gifted land was not brought to the hotchpotch of the T.S,. No.38 of 1977 where Panchanan had registered contest. 3.1. As the brothers were gifted with the landed property measuring Ac.4.97.3 links by their grandfather Upendra, plaintiff-Panchanan felt aggrieved. 3.2. Panchanan as plaintiff brought the present T.S. No.59 of 1980 against his two brothers defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their sons defendant nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. For clarity it may be stated that defendant nos. 3 to 6 were the donees under gift deed dated 30.07.1974 executed by their grandfather, Upendra 4. The lands covered under the gift deed was the subject matter of the partition suit on the ground that the donor Upendra had no authority to make gift of joint family properties which were acquired with the aid and assistance of joint family nucleus. 5. The contesting defendant nos. The lands covered under the gift deed was the subject matter of the partition suit on the ground that the donor Upendra had no authority to make gift of joint family properties which were acquired with the aid and assistance of joint family nucleus. 5. The contesting defendant nos. 3,4 and 5 resisted the claim for partition advancing plea that the gifted property was the self-acquisition of Upendra. 6. Defendant no.6, one of the donees, being minor was represented by the GAL. The other defendants did not choose to contest the suit. The plea of constructive res-judicata for the partition of joint family property in the earlier suit bearing T.S. No.38 of 1977, and the period of limitation to challenge the deed of gift was taken. 7. The learned Subordinate Judge framed the following eight issues:- 1. Is the suit maintainable ? 2. Has the plaintiff any cause of action to file the suit ? 3. Are the suit properties liable to be partitioned ? 4. Is the deed of gift dated 30.7.1974 executed by Upendra Mishra in the names of defendant nos. 3 to 6 valid transaction ? 5. Are the defendant nos. 3 to 5 bound by the decree in T.S. No.38 of 1977 ? 6. Is this suit barred by res-judicata in view of T.S. No.38/77 ? 7. To what share and extent of property in suit the plaintiff is entitled ? 8. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ? 8. Learned Subordinate Judge in answering the issues nos. 3,4,7 and 8 held that the suit properties were the part and parcel of the ancestral properties belonging to the family and Upendra had no authority to alienate the same by way of gift in favour of defendant nos. 3 to 6. The share of the plaintiff was carved out to be 7/24 on the basis of notional partition. Issue nos. 1 and 2 were answered affirmatively in favour of the plaintiff. 9. As against issue nos. 5 and 6, learned Subordinate Judge in paragraph-14 of his judgment was mentioned “not pressed”. Thus, a preliminary decree was passed in the subsequent suit T.S. No.59 of 1980. 10. The defendants who were donees in gift deed dated 30.07.1974 had preferred First Appeal No.386 of 1983 before the learned Single Judge. 9. As against issue nos. 5 and 6, learned Subordinate Judge in paragraph-14 of his judgment was mentioned “not pressed”. Thus, a preliminary decree was passed in the subsequent suit T.S. No.59 of 1980. 10. The defendants who were donees in gift deed dated 30.07.1974 had preferred First Appeal No.386 of 1983 before the learned Single Judge. It was pleaded and urged in the first appeal that the contesting defendants had never made any submission not to press issue nos. 5 and 6 and learned Subordinate Judge had committed error in mentioning the same “not pressed” against those two issues. 11. The respondent-plaintiff in the first appeal had contradicted such contention and urged to confine the defendants at the contour of the truthful expression of the court made in the judgment in respect of issue nos. 5 and 6. 12. Learned Single Judge on scrutiny of records, which include the judgment and previous decree in T.S. No.38 of 1977 concluded that :- “there could not have been an occasion for not pressing the aforesaid issues. There is nothing on record to accept the said recording. The matter could have been different if a memorandum to that extent duly signed by the counsel would have been kept on record.” 13. Learned Single Judge found that the plaintiff had occasioned to contest the non-inclusion of present suit lands in previous suit number T.S. No.38 of 1977 and recorded that “a party being aware and taking positive defence challenging the maintainability of the suit and thereafter abandoning it, the same would amount to acceptance by him. He had, in fact, conceded that the property was self-acquired” It is further observed that the suit was barred by the principle of res-judicata and the suit was not maintainable for partition. The appeal was allowed. Resultantly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. 14. In this intra-court appeal, the respondents were absent to argue the matter. 15. Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants submitted the following points for answer :- (i) The endorsement ‘not pressed’ against issue nos. 5 and 6 in the lower court judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge should not have been doubted by the learned Single Judge in the appeal because it was recorded in the court proceeding and contesting defendants did not prefer to challenge the same soon thereafter in the lower court filing affidavit. 5 and 6 in the lower court judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge should not have been doubted by the learned Single Judge in the appeal because it was recorded in the court proceeding and contesting defendants did not prefer to challenge the same soon thereafter in the lower court filing affidavit. (ii) Learned Single Judge should have remanded the matter to the trial court once the ‘not pressed’ endorsement against issue nos. 5 and 6 was disbelieved in the appeal. 16. Before answering the above two points urged by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants, expediency demands to remind ourselves the ambit of letters patent appeal. In the case of Asho Devi Vs. Dukhi Sao & another, reported in 1974 AIR 2048, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterate the scope of letters patent appeal in the following words :- “We may also mention that a five Judges Bench of this Court in Alapati Kasi Viswanahan v. A. Sivasrama Krishnayya and Ors. (C.A. No. 232 of 1961 decided on January 11, 1963) (3)-an unreported judgment had dealt directly with this question. Wanchoo, J., speaking for the Court observed Xxx xxx xxx xxx In these circumstances it will be open to the High Court to review even findings of fact in a Letters Patent appeal from a first appeal heard by a learned single Judge, though generally speaking the Letters Patent Bench would be slow to disturb concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below. But there is no doubt that in an appropriate case a Letters Patent Bench hearing an appeal from a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a first appeal heard by him is entitled to review even findings of fact. The contention of the appellant therefore that the Letters Patent Bench was not in law entitled to reverse the concurrent findings of fact must be negatived.” In the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah & Others vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple & others, reported in 1996 SCC (3) 52, the Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that :- “Against the orders of the trial court, first appeal lay before the High Court, both on facts as well as law. It is the internal working of the High Court which splits it into different ‘Benches’ and yet the court remains one. It is the internal working of the High Court which splits it into different ‘Benches’ and yet the court remains one. A Letters Patent Appeal, as permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an intra-court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. So understood, the appellate power under the Letters Patent is quite distinct, in contrast to what is ordinarily understood in procedural language.” 17. Between the lines drawn above, the questions raised need narration. Point no. (i) – The meat of the matter is Ac.4.98.3 links of land covered under gift deed dated 30.07.1974 and not brought to the hotchpotch of partition suit T.S. 38 of 1977. The donees, who happen to be the brother’s son of plaintiff asserted the same to have been self-acquired by Upendra as against the plaintiff’s, one of the sons of Upendra, attempt to characterize the same as joint family property. The trial court framed issue nos. 5 and 6 of which answer could have tilted the decision either way. Those issues had assumed distinction amongst others. There is no material either in the order sheet or in the form of memorandum or in the body of judgment as to who made such advance to pre-empt learned Subordinate Judge to record ‘not pressed’ against both the issues. From the materials on record, it is apparent that the maker of the statement ‘not pressed’ is unknown. ‘Not pressed’ contextually is a statement which may mean abandonment, admission and taken back. It is not an answer to any issue. The consequence of ‘not pressed’ of an issue if not analyzed in the judgment cannot be a caveat to doubt and ambiguity. It is wrong to import meaning into the words ‘not pressed’ when the said combination of words, i.e. ’not pressed’ is likely to have several consequences in the lis. 17. (a) Though in a different context, it is apposite to note that Hon’ble Apex Court, in a judgment dated 07.09. It is wrong to import meaning into the words ‘not pressed’ when the said combination of words, i.e. ’not pressed’ is likely to have several consequences in the lis. 17. (a) Though in a different context, it is apposite to note that Hon’ble Apex Court, in a judgment dated 07.09. 2018 in the case of Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. K.M. Chikkathayamma & others in Civil Appeal No.9182-9188 of 2018, on the question as to whether Court can form an opinion to record as ‘not pressed’ in absence of any basis has observed that - “27) In our opinion, neither there was any express prayer made by the MUDA and nor it could be inferred from the document relied on by the Division Bench at the instance of respondents (writ petitioners) for forming an opinion ‘not to press the appeal’. In other words, the opinion formed by the High Court for dismissing the appeal “as not pressed” had no basis. Xx xx xx “28) He can however, forgo such right but it has to be done with express authority and free will.” (Underline is ours) 17. (b) When the statement ‘not pressed’ against issue nos,.5 and 6, has no basis and open to many meanings, the appellate court can examine the same. 17. (c) The trial court is bound to pronounce the judgment on all the issues. It is the command of the provision under Order 14 Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which runs as follows : “Or. XIV Rule-2 – Court to pronounce judgment on all issues – (1) Not withstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue the Court shall, subject to the provisions sof Sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.:” 17 (d). A lawyer can abandon an issue but when court is under legal obligation to answer that issue, it is desirable that a written memorandum is obtained in that regard and mention is made in the order sheet. The consequence of such ‘not pressed’ statement should be analyzed in answering the issues so that meaning of ‘not pressed’ can be read in to the context of the decision. 17.(e). Learned Single Judge obviously for want of any basis behind the ‘not pressed’ statement against issue nos. 5 and 6, had pondered over the same and consequently disbelieved the fact that the defendants had abandoned the same. 17.(e). Learned Single Judge obviously for want of any basis behind the ‘not pressed’ statement against issue nos. 5 and 6, had pondered over the same and consequently disbelieved the fact that the defendants had abandoned the same. Such exercise was within the legal limits of the first appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on his score is not tenable. 18. Point No. (ii) – Learned Single Judge after recording a finding that issue nos. 5 and 6 were not pressed by the contesting defendants, had recast the issue no.5 and proceeded to answer the same from the evidence available before him. Remanding the matter was not necessitated because, to quote the learned Single Judge, “as the parties have been litigating for a consideration length of timel and they were aware of the real controversy.” 18. (a) The unambiguous provision of Order 41 Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it obligatory on the part of the court to take a refuse first to answer the issue if the evidence on record is sufficient. The said provision is extracted herein for ready reference :- Or.XLI R.24. Where evidence on record sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally – Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may after, resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds.” 19. In a decision reported in AIR 2017 SC 5604 in the case of C. Venkat Swamy vs. H.N. Shivanna (D) by L.R. and another etc. the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the scope of first appeal as follows :- “11. It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first Appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in the first appeal. The jurisdiction of the first Appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in the first appeal. It is the duty of the first Appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and arrive at its own independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of affirmance or difference.” 20. The learned Single Judge acted within the jurisdiction of Or. 41 R. 24 C.P.C. No fault can be found in not remanding back the matter to the lower court. Because of above the second plank of submission of learned counsel for appellant fails to withstand the rigour of fact and law on record. 21. The whole exercise of the learned Single Judge as first appellate court is found within the parameters of the legal compass. Any interference in this intra-court appeal is uncalled for. The appeal stands dismissed. No costs. S.K. Mishra, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.