Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
K.V.MURALIDHAR – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
K.V.ANANDA RAO & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5875-5876/2010
Decided On : 07-01-2016
Failure of a court to consider and record specific findings on essential documents, such as compromise agreements or partition memoranda, which are necessary to determine the rights of parties, justifies remitting the matter for a fresh decision.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Remand - Failure to consider essential documents - In cases where a compromise and a memorandum recording oral partition are central to determining the rights of the parties, the failure of the court to record specific findings on such documents necessitates the setting aside of the judgment and remitting the matter for a fresh decision.
Facts of the case:
Two critical documents, specifically a compromise reached in a previous suit and a memorandum recording oral partition, were not properly considered, and no specific findings were recorded on them by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court held that specific findings ought to have been recorded on the two documents to determine the rights of the parties effectively.
Issues: Whether the failure to record findings on a compromise and a partition memorandum was a sufficient ground to remit the matter for a fresh hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: When essential documents that define the rights of the parties are not adjudicated upon with specific findings, the resulting judgment is incomplete, requiring a remand for a fresh decision after hearing the concerned parties.
Result: Civil appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
appeal
- remand
-
evidence
- failure to consider documents
-
appeal
JUDGMENT
ANIL R. DAVE,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
Upon hearing the learned counsel, it appears that two important documents have not been properly considered by the High Court and no specific findings have been recorded thereon, namely;
1) compromise arrived at in O.S. No. 47/70 on 29.11.1975 and
2) a memorandum recording oral partition dated 10.11.1985.
We are of the view that specific findings ought to have been recorded on the aforesaid two documents so as to determine the rights of the parties.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter back to the High Court so that after hearing the concerned parties, the matter can be decided afresh. Needless to say that it would be open to the parties to raise all possible contentions before the High Court.
The parties shall appear before the High Court on 08.02.2016 so that the matter can be fixed for hearing on that date.
The civil appeals are disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.
