Deshraj Singh Parmar v. Ram Babu Agarwal - CPC - First Appeal
The judgment in a first appeal shall adhere to the points laid down in Rule 31 and any noncompliance to that extent would render the judgment infirm.
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Order XLI Rule 3 -The appellate court has the jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. In doing so, the appellate court has to evaluate the findings on facts as well as the law, as arrived at by the trial court, and reappreciate them from scratch in order to ascertain the validity of the said judgment of the trial court. The judgment in a first appeal shall adhere to the points laid down in Rule 31 and any noncompliance to that extent would render the judgment infirm.
Case Info
Basic Case Information
Case name: Deshraj Singh Parmar & Ors v. Ram Babu Agarwal & Ors
Neutral citation: Not mentioned in the order extract (only cause numbers given: Civil Appeal Nos. 10916–10917 of 2016 with Civil Appeal No. 10448 of 2016).
Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram NathHon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep MehtaHon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Judgment date: 23 April 2026 (see last page: “NEW DELHI; APRIL 23, 2026” and the Record of Proceedings of the same date).
Caselaws and Citations Referred
The order cites one Supreme Court decision:
- Manjula and Others v. Shyamsundar and Others, (2022) 3 SCC 90
This case is quoted for the proposition that in a first appeal under section 96 CPC, the appellate court must comply with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC by formulating points for determination, recording decisions thereon and reasons, and that non‑compliance renders the judgment infirm and liable to be set aside.
Statutes / Laws Referred
The order specifically refers to the following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
- Order I Rule 8 CPC – representative suits (plaintiffs had filed the suit in a representative capacity).
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC – amendment of pleadings (plaintiffs’ application to amend the plaint to add a prayer to declare the 11.07.1978 sale deed void).
- Section 96 CPC – first appeals from original decrees.
- Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – requirements for judgments in first appeals (points for determination, decision, reasons, relief).
Brief Summary (Three Sentences)
The plaintiffs had filed a representative suit seeking, inter alia, a declaration that a Hanuman temple and surrounding open land were public temple property, injunctive relief against interference with worship and removal of deities/peepal tree, and a declaration that a 11.07.1978 sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1 was void, while defendant no. 1 counter‑claimed exclusive ownership. The Trial Court dismissed both the suit and the counter‑claim, but the High Court, in first appeal, partly allowed the appeal by declaring the temple and adjacent open area to be a public temple and partly voiding the sale deed, without framing or deciding an issue on limitation and without properly complying with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. Relying on Manjula v. Shyamsundar, the Supreme Court held that this non‑compliance made the High Court judgment infirm, set aside the High Court’s judgment and modification order, and remitted the first appeal to the High Court for fresh disposal on all issues including limitation.