2001 JTR(SC) 746
2001 AIR(Kar)(R) 2672 ; 2001 AIR(SC) 2171 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 1804 ; 2001 2 AllCJ 1125 ; 2001 43 AllLR 813 ; 2001 3 AWC 1984 ; 2001 2 BBCJ(SC) 146 ; 2001 Supp BomCR(SC) 765 ; 2001 DNJ 433 ; 2001 4 ICC 575 ; 2001 ILR(Kar) 5029 ; 2001 1 JCC 321 ; 2002 1 JCR(SC) 274 ; 2001 2 JLJR(SC) 312 ; 2001 5 JT 72 ; 2001 2 PLJ 137 ; 2001 3 PLJR(SC) 192 ; 2001 2 RCR(Civ) 704 ; 2001 2 RLW(Raj) 245 ; 2001 3 Scale 489 ; 2001 4 SCC 756 ; 2001 2 SCJ 278 ; 2001 3 SCR 138 ; 2001 2 UJ 846 ; 2001 WLC 412 ; 2001 KHC 1095 ; 2001 3 Supreme 518
2001(3) Supreme 518
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Madhukar & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Sangram & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2918 of 2001
(@ SLP (C) No. 2795 of 2000)
Decided on 20-4-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.R. Ramasesh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : D.P. Chaturvedi and S.N. Bhat, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment under appeal has been decided in a very unsatisfactory manner by the High Court. The salutory principles regarding jurisdiction and duty of first Appellate Court as laid down in Santosh Hazari s case (2001(1) Supreme 642) have been respected by High Court in their breach. Supreme Court has thus remanded the first appeal to High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law laid down in said judgment.
Act Referred :CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.96
(A) The Civil Procedure Code, Section 96, read with the principles governing limitation and res judicata, frames the appellate jurisdiction when a first appellate court reviews a trial decree. The present appeal underscores that Section 96 contemplate the appellate court's duty to examine both questions of law and fact on appeal, and that the doctrine of res judicata operates as a bar only against the particular party in the earlier suit. The impugned order is tested against the requirements of Section 96 read with the principles of res judicata and appellate review.
(B) First appeal is a valuable right to rehear the case on facts and law; an appellate judgment must reflect reasoned findings on all issues; a trial decree must be set aside only if the appellate court is satisfied on all factual and legal grounds; appellate court must examine documentary and oral evidence and record satisfactory reasons; findings of fact must be supported by clear reasoning; mere review without reasoned analysis is unsustainable.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs respondents filed a suit for declaration that they along with defendant no.1 were joint owners in possession of the suit property and that a gift deed and two sale deeds were ineffective so far as rights of the plaintiffs are concerned. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds of limitation and that a decision in an earlier suit OS no.93/71 operated as res judicata against defendant no.1 only. The plaintiffs filed a first appeal in the High Court. The High Court after noticing the documentary evidence and oral evidence set aside the trial court decree and allowed the first appeal. This special leave appeal was filed by the appellants contesting defendants.
Findings of Court:
The High Court failed to consider or discuss the grounds on which the trial court dismissed the suit namely limitation and the doctrine of res judicata. The High Court was under a duty to deal with all issues and evidence and record reasoned findings. The impugned first appeal judgment is unsatisfactory, hopelessly falls short of expected standards and does not reflect conscious application of mind.
Issues:
Whether the High Court committed error in not examining the grounds of dismissal raised by the trial court? Whether the first appellate judgment is sustainable in view of not addressing the relevant issues and evidence? Whether the first appellate court discharged its duty under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code?
Ratio Decidendi:
A first appellate court must exercise its jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code to decide all questions of law and fact on appeal, record reasoned findings on all issues raised by the parties, and reverse or affirm the trial courts findings only after satisfying itself about the reasoning and principles laid down by the trial court; failure to do so warrants setting aside the appellate decree and remanding the matter for fresh disposal.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the first appeal is remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
(A) The Civil Procedure Code, Section 96, read with the principles governing limitation and res judicata, frames the appellate jurisdiction when a first appellate court reviews a trial decree. The present appeal underscores that Section 96 contemplate the appellate court's duty to examine both questions of law and fact on appeal, and that the doctrine of res judicata operates as a bar only against the particular party in the earlier suit. The impugned order is tested against the requirements of Section 96 read with the principles of res judicata and appellate review.
(B) First appeal is a valuable right to rehear the case on facts and law; an appellate judgment must reflect reasoned findings on all issues; a trial decree must be set aside only if the appellate court is satisfied on all factual and legal grounds; appellate court must examine documentary and oral evidence and record satisfactory reasons; findings of fact must be supported by clear reasoning; mere review without reasoned analysis is unsustainable.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs respondents filed a suit for declaration that they along with defendant no.1 were joint owners in possession of the suit property and that a gift deed and two sale deeds were ineffective so far as rights of the plaintiffs are concerned. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds of limitation and that a decision in an earlier suit OS no.93/71 operated as res judicata against defendant no.1 only. The plaintiffs filed a first appeal in the High Court. The High Court after noticing the documentary evidence and oral evidence set aside the trial court decree and allowed the first appeal. This special leave appeal was filed by the appellants contesting defendants.
Findings of Court:
The High Court failed to consider or discuss the grounds on which the trial court dismissed the suit namely limitation and the doctrine of res judicata. The High Court was under a duty to deal with all issues and evidence and record reasoned findings. The impugned first appeal judgment is unsatisfactory, hopelessly falls short of expected standards and does not reflect conscious application of mind.
Issues:
Whether the High Court committed error in not examining the grounds of dismissal raised by the trial court? Whether the first appellate judgment is sustainable in view of not addressing the relevant issues and evidence? Whether the first appellate court discharged its duty under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code?
Ratio Decidendi:
A first appellate court must exercise its jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code to decide all questions of law and fact on appeal, record reasoned findings on all issues raised by the parties, and reverse or affirm the trial courts findings only after satisfying itself about the reasoning and principles laid down by the trial court; failure to do so warrants setting aside the appellate decree and remanding the matter for fresh disposal.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the first appeal is remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Respondents - plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they, along with defendant No. 1, were the joint owners in possession of the suit property and also for a declaration that gift deed bearing No. 3041/65 and the two sale deeds dated 28.2.1989 were ineffective insofar as the rights of the plaintiffs are concerned. Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. A perusal of the order of the Trial Court shows that suit was dismissed inter-alia on the ground (1) of limitation and (2) on the ground that decision in an earlier suit, being OS No. 93/71 operated as res judicata against defendant No.1 only. Before the Trial Court, documentary evidence was led, including placing on record copies of entries of public records and decision of the earlier suit (O.S. No. 93/71).
3. Against the dismissal of the suit, a first appeal was filed by the plaintiffs - respondents in the High Court. The High Court, after noticing some details from the judgment of the Trial Court as also pleadings of the parties, opined that the questions to be decided in the appeal were :
"(1) Whether the relationship claimed by the parties are true?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?"
4. After deciding these questions in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the first appeal. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by special leave by the appellants-contesting defendants.
5. We have carefully perused the judgment and decree of the High Court in the first appeal. We find that substantial documentary evidence had been placed before the trial Court including certified copies of certain public records besides copy of the judgment and decree of the earlier suit (OS No. 93/71). Oral evidence had also been led by the parties before the trial Court, which was noticed and appreciated by the trial Court. However, the impugned judgment in the first appeal, is singularly silent of any discussion either of documentary evidence or oral evidence. Not only that, we find that though trial Court had dismissed the suit on ground of limitation as also on the ground that the decision in the earlier suit (OS No. 93/71) operated as res judicata against defendant No. 1 only the High Court has not even considered, much less discussed, correctness of either of the two grounds on which the trial Court had dismissed the suit. Sitting as a Court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. It has failed to discharge the obligation placed on a first appellate court. The judgment under appeal is so cryptic that none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in a very unsatisfactory manner. First appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings.
6. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.Rs.1, this court opined :
"The Appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the Appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind, and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the Appellate Court."
..........................
..........................
"While reversing a finding of fact the Appellate Court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial Court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the Court hearing a further appeal that the First Appellate Court had discharged the duty expected of it."
7. The salutary principles referred to above in Santosh Hazari s case (supra) have been respected in their breach.
8. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the first appeal shows that it hopelessly falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.
9. We wish to clarify that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
10. We request the High Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously after notice to the parties.
11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Parties shall bear their own costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed. Case remanded to High Court.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Madhukar & Ors. v. Sangram & Ors., 2001(3) Supreme 518
00042
00043