MUNAWWAR ELAHEE RANA, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29- 10-1977 whereby the learned Civil Judge, Lahore passed a preliminary decree in a suit for partition of the property and appointed a local Commissioner to draw up the scheme for partition.
2. In her suit for partition of bunglow No. S XVII-50, situated in Shah Jamal, Lahore, the plaintiff Noor Jaban claimed against the defendants-appellants 1/3rd share as a co-owner. Various objections were taken in the written statement which gave rise to the following issues :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property ? O. P. P.
(2) If not to what affect? O. P. D.
(3) Whether the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has been correctly assessed? O. P. P.
(4) if not, what is the correct valuation? O. P. D.
(5) Whether the plaintiff is co-owner of the property concerned? O. P. P
(6) Relief.
I-A. Whether the suit discloses no cause of action?
3. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court on 29-10-1977 passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent a preliminary decree allowing the property to be partitioned to the extent of her share, and also appointed a local Commissioner to make a report in the light of the directions given by the Government. Strangely enough, the learned trial Court, while deciding the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, had, for reasons known to it, omitted to decide additional issue No. 1-A.
11 4. It also needs be pointed out that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained on another ground also because issue No. 5 which covered the main dispute was not disposed of in accordance with law. The record shows that besides a few documents the plaintiff-respondent produced four witnesses, and the appellants on the other hand examined two, while the statement of Mst. Gulab Khanum was recorded on commission. This shows that there was ample evidence on record but the learned trial Court, without properly discussing it, had apparently proceeded to decide the issue on the alleged admission of Mst. Ghulab Khanum alone and observed also that it was proved from the evidence of the plaintiff that she was co-owner of the property in dispute, and that her share was 1 /3rd. It is settled that in appeal--able cases the Court has to refer to and discuss each material piece of evidence in an intelligible manner, decide all the issues separately, and come to a conclusion of fact after recording reasons therefore. We feel that the learned Court has failed to comply with the express provisions of law, with the result that its finding on issue No. 5 stands vitiated.
5. Many other objections including those relating to the description of the property and its area were raised before us, but since the case is being remitted to the trial Court for re-writing the judgment, we are not inclined to give in that respect any finding of our own. The parties shall be at liberty to take up, if permissible, those points there.
6. For the reasons aforementioned the appeal is accepted, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for deciding the suit afresh in accordance with law. The parties are however left to bear their own costs.