Judges : V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Kurian Chocko - Appellant
Versus
Varkey Ouseph - Respondent
Case No : S. A. No. 739 of 1965
Decided On : 09/25/1968
Advocates Appeared :
Joseph Vithayathil; George Vadakkel; Varghese Kalliath; K. J. Kurien; For Appellant S. Narayanan Potti; N. K. Varkey; V. Dharmadan; For Respondent
Appellate Jurisdiction - Title and Possession - The appellate court failed to provide a full and fair consideration of the evidence, leading to an unjust decision. The burden of establishing title and possession lies on the plaintiff, and the appellate court must independently appraise the evidence and not merely supplement the lower court's findings. The appellate court's function is to determine if the lower court's decision is wrong, not just whether it is perverse. The interests of justice require setting aside the lower court's judgment and sending the appeal back for fresh disposal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, which was dismissed by the lower courts. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title and possession, claiming both for himself.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court failed to provide a full and fair consideration of the evidence, leading to an unjust decision. The interests of justice require setting aside the lower court's judgment and sending the appeal back for fresh disposal.
Issues: Dispute over title and possession, failure of the appellate court to independently appraise the evidence, and the need for setting aside the lower court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of establishing title and possession lies on the plaintiff. The appellate court must independently appraise the evidence and determine if the lower court's decision is wrong. The interests of justice require setting aside the lower court's judgment and sending the appeal back for fresh disposal.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the Court below were set aside, and the appeal was sent back for fresh disposal by the Sub Court of Kottayam. The court-fee paid on the memorandum of second appeal will be refunded, and the costs of the appeal will be costs in the cause.
1. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in two courts, has come up here aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit which was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to the property as also his possession and claimed both in himself. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings against the plaintiff both on title and possession. But, in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the whole matter glibly and briefly, in a few sentences.
2. An appellate court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case the learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an appellate Court. Although there is furious contest between the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent, they appear to agree with me in this observation. Shri. Varkey, learned counsel for the respondent, feels that his client has a strong case not merely regarding possession but regarding title and wants me to remember that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish a subsisting title and this implies possession within 12 years of the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, after stating a few facts, has wound up with the following observations:
There was also no satisfactory explanation by the appellant for the delay of about three weeks to file the suit."
I may state in parenthesis that a suit for possession on title does not depend upon a few weeks' delay, after the trespass had occurred, in bringing the suit. The crucial question is as to whether the plaintiff has
title at all which, in this context means a subsisting title. The Court cannot side tract itself by minor questions like whether the trespass was a week ago or two weeks ago and whether the cock-and-bull story seeking to explain the 2 or 3 weeks' delay in bringing any suit is true or not. The Subordinate Judge continued:
"In this context we cannot help remarking that the appreciation by the Court below of the evidence of possession on the side of the respondent cannot be usefully supplemented."
No supplementing of appreciation is contemplated at the appellate stage. But, an independent appraisal of the evidence is the duty of the Court at that level. Failure to do that is an abdication of appellate power. Unfortunately, there is no consideration of the evidence in the case in appeal. The Subordinate Judge concluded still more erroneously, by stating:' No factual error or perversity has also been pointed out by the appellant's counsel."
It is the appellate Court's function not to find out whether there is perversity in the trial Court's judgment but whether it is wrong. There is very wide difference between a wrong conclusion and a perverse conclusion. A restricted revisional jurisdiction may be invoked under certain statutes only where there is perversity in the findings but the wider appellate jurisdiction conferred under S.96 of the Civil Procedure Code demands a little more effort on the part of the appellate Court in going into the evidence to come to its own conclusion and reversing the trial Court's decision if it is found to be wrong. Far be it from me to suggest that I even hinted at the trial court's judgment being wrong in this case. That is a matter entirely for consideration by the appellate Court. The interests of justice, therefore, require that the judgment and decree of the Court below should be set aside and the appeal sent back for fresh disposal by the Sub Court of Kottayam.
The court-fee paid on the memorandum of second appeal will be refunded. Costs of this appeal will be costs in the cause.
Allowed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.