Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
U. Manjunath Rao – Appellant(s)
Versus
U. Chandrashekar & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9951 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27646 of 2014)
Decided On : 04-08-2017
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – First Appeal – Reasoned order – Judgment of appellate court has to state reasons for decision – Approach of first appellate court while affirming judgment of trial Court and reversing the same is founded on different parameters – While agreeing with view of trial court on evidence, it is not necessary to restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by trial court – Expression of general agreement with reasons given in trial court judgment which is under appeal should ordinarily suffice – However, expression of general agreement with findings recorded in judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage to be adopted by appellate court for shirking duty cast on it – Expression of opinion has to be understood in proper perspective – First appellate court has a defined role and its judgment should show application of mind and reflect reasons on the basis of which it agrees with trial Court – It cannot be said that mere concurrence meets requirement of law – It is one thing to state that appeal is without any substance and it is another thing to elucidate, analyse and arrive at the conclusion that appeal is devoid of merit. (Paras 12 and 13)
Facts of Case:
Challenge in present appeal is to legal acceptability of judgment and decree passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal whereby Single Judge has declined to interfere in appeal preferred by first defendant questioning defensibility of judgment and decree passed by Additional City Civil Judge.
Findings of Court:
Learned Judge has really not ascribed any reason. There has been no analysis of facts or law. There is no discussion with regard to points urged. While agreeing with general approval of reasons to support conclusions of judgment in appeal, High Court has to keep in view language employed in Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and view expressed in Santosh Hazari. Analysis and reason are to be manifest. When that is not done, judgment of High Court becomes indefensible. Impugned judgment and decree passed by High Court set aside and matter remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
The challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the legal acceptability of the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No. 1626 of 2010 whereby the learned single Judge has declined to interfere in the appeal preferred by the first defendant questioning the defensibility of the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore in O.S. No. 16950 of 2004.
2. The narration of facts as is evincible from the impugned judgment are that the first defendant was aggrieved as he was directed by the trial Court to execute a rectification deed in respect of property description No. 2 in B-schedule in the partition deed dated 01.04.1981 which was registered on 28.07.1981 and brought on record as Ex.P-1 and further granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the property in question. It was contended before the High Court that the trial Court had erred in law in decreeing the suit as the registered deed of partition had not been proved in accordance with law and further the schedule property formed part of the joint family property. That apart, it was urged that the said property was purchased by the defendant No. 1 from his own sources and his name had been recorded in the record of rights and there was no material on record to come to a conclusion that there existed a joint family which possessed sufficient nucleus to purchase the schedule property. A ground was taken that the partition deed had not seen the light of the day for more than 22 years and when its genuineness was questioned on the basis of materials brought on record, the said issue had not been appositely addressed.
3. The High Court, as the impugned judgment reveals, noted some of the contentions and posed the question whether the trial Court was justified in directing the defendants to execute a rectification deed to correct the error in stating the site number in the partition deed dated 01.04.1981 marked in evidence as Ex.P-1. It took note of the fact that in the said partition deed site No. 25, which was allotted to the plaintiff, was erroneously described as site No. 35 and hence, relief of the rectification of the error in the deed had been granted by the trial Court. Thereafter the learned single Judge, as is vivid, copiously quoted from the judgment of the trial Court and held that he did not find any infirmities in the findings recorded by the trial Court and certain documents brought on record showed that the plaintiff was in possession of the site No. 25. On the aforesaid basis, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant No. 1.
4. Despite service of notice, there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents.
5. We have heard Mr. R.S. Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant. Criticising the judgment, he has submitted that the High Court has dismissed the first appeal without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence brought on record and further not adverting to the assailment by the appellant therein as regards the findings recorded by the trial Court. It is canvassed by him that when the plaintiff had not adduced any evidence to prove the existence of the joint family, the question of placing reliance on the deed of partition presuming that the property in dispute was a joint family property and, therefore, the partition deed required to be rectified as an error has been crept in, is absolutely fallacious. Learned counsel would submit that quoting from the trial Court judgment and confirming the same in a cryptic manner is not a lawful delineation of the first appeal preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and, therefore, the impugned judgment can be stamped as an unreasoned one and should be set aside with a direction to the High Court to dispose of the appeal o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
