It is to be observed from the proceedings of 14.02.1994 that this witnesshad not been cross examined either by the 7th defendant or 8th defendant.However, after conclusion of examination-in-chief of that witness, casehad been fixed for judgment on 15.03.1994.
On a perusal of the impugned judgment it is found that the learnedJudge has stated (at page 128 of the brief) as follows :-

Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2005) 3 Sri L ft
As seen above, it has become crystal clear that the learned Judge hadtotally failed to investigate the title to the corpus. He has stated that althoughthere was a contest at the commencement, later as the case had beenconcluded only with the plaintiff’s evidence and since no evidence hadbeen led by the defendant, he was accepting the evidence given by theplaintiff and accordingly it was concluded that parlies should be entitled toundivided shares as in the judgment, (as appearing at page 128 of thebrief).
As evidenced by the proceedings before the learned District Judge afterraising points of contest, nowhere has it been recorded that the aforesaidcontest was settled and/or that there was no contest among the parties. Ithas to be further observed that there is nothing in the record to infer that asettlement was arrived upon. In those circumstances firstly the learnedDistrict Judge should have answered the points of contest after dueevaluation of the evidence available before Court. In this regard it would bepertinent to consider the decision in Cooray vs. Wijesuriyaf ’> where theCourt held thus:
“Section 25 of the Partition Act imposes on the Court theobligation to examine morefully the title of each party tothe action.”
In the instant case I conclude that the learned Judge has committed acardinal error by not investigating the title to the corpus. It is to be furthernoted that the learned Judge also has failed to answer the points of contestwhich had been admitted to trial. In the case of Dona Lucyhamy vsCicillinahamy(2> it was held by the Supreme Court to the following effect:
“Bare answers, without reasons to issues or points of contestraised in a trial are not in compliance with the requirements ofsection 187 of the Civil Procedure Code”
The above principle of law was followed by the Court of Appeal inWarnakula vs. Ram an i Jay a warden^ wherein it was held :
“Bare answers to issues without reasons are not in compliancewith the requirements of section 187 of the Civil ProcedureCode. The evidence germane to each issue must be reviewed
Sobanahamy vs Somadasa
or examined. The Judge must evaluate and consider the totalityof the evidence. Giving a short summary of the evidence of theparties and witnesses and stating that he prefers to accept theevidence of one party without giving reasons are insufficient.”
In the instant case the learned Judge has totally failed to answer any ofthe points of contest admitted to trial.
For the aforesaid reasons I conclude that the impugned judgment cannotbe allowed to stand and the judgment dated 15.03.1994 is hereby setaside. Although I am quite mindful of the inconveniences that would becaused to the parties by a trial de novo, I conclude that this Court is leftwith no alternative but to order a trial de novo. Accordingly the case isremitted to the District Court for a trial de novo and the learned DistrictJudge is hereby directed to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.Parties to bear their own costs incurred in the lower court and here.
The Registrar of this Court is directed to forward the record in case No.2338/P to the respective District Court forthwith.
SOM AWANSA, J(P/CA). – / agree.
Appeal Allowed.
Trial de Novo Ordered.