Puttegowda Vs. Puttaswamygowda

.....(central act v of 1908) - section 96 -- first appellate court has power to go into both oral and documentary evidence- where first appellate court overlooked oral evidence, held, judgment liable to be set aside for a fresh hearing. - minimum wages act, 1948section 5 (1) & karnataka minimum wages rules, 1958: [subhash b.adi, j] determination of minimum wages challenge as to notification - held, for fixing the minimum wages, state is only discharging its constitutional obligation imposed upon it under the directive principles of state policy. this is a constitutional duty towards the economically weaker section of the society and cannot be allowed to be defeated on a theory of capacity of the industry to pay, which is a judicial blast placed on the meaning of article 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india. capacity of an industry to pay has no application to exercise power by the state in fixing the minimum wages. state in issuing notification under section 5 exercises the legislative power and there is no requirement for the state to give reasons for its decision. further, the state government has fairly and reasonably exercised its power conferred under section 5 clause (b) proviso, as there is no counter proposal by the advisory board and advisory board has also deliberated on the issue. even assuming that there are any technical error, broadly when the minimum rates of wages is fixed by the impugned notification and being most reasonably fixed after nine years, court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the government and particularly in the matter of fixation of minimum wages, the scope of interference by the court under article 226 being very limited. the notifications issued are in accordance with the provisions of the act and the rules made there under. - the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the appellant failed to establish title of his vendor. 1 is proved ought to have decreed the suit when it was clearly found that the..........failed to establish title of his vendor. the appeal filed by the present appellant in r.a.no. 31/1988 was dismissed by the civil judge, hunsur.2. the learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the courts below having rightly found that exhibit p.1 is proved ought to have decreed the suit when it was clearly found that the respondent have not established their right to the suit land. he further contends that the appellate court failed to consider the oral evidence and the judgment is vitiated for that reason.3. the learned judge observed that it is not necessary to go into the discussion of oral evidence. a perusal of the judgment of the appellate court would reveal that the learned judge has not looked into the oral evidence and has completely ignored the same. it is to be noted that an appellate court sitting in first appeal has to go into the evidence, both oral and documentary and arrive at conclusions based on appreciation of evidence. if any part of the evidence is overlooked or ignored by the appellate court, the judgment cannot be allowed to stand. may be that the appellate court need not discuss the evidence in detail while affirming the judgment of the trial court, but the appellate court has a duty to go into the evidence and to come to its own conclusions based on the evidence.4. the judgment of the learned judge has therefore to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. the appeal is remanded to the court of the civil judge, hunsur for hearing afresh in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. the learned judge will dispose the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of this order. appeal allowed. no costs.