Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1727 (HP)

Onkar Singh v. Veena Devi

2018-09-25

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Looking into the nature of the judgment, I proposes to pass, it is not necessary to delve deep into the facts and suffice it to state that original plaintiff Amin Chand (who died during the trial of the case) filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession to the effect that he was owner in possession of Khasra No.2262/2838 shares of land comprising Khata No.112, Khatauni No.200, Khasra No.474, measuring 0-28-38 hects., situated in Mohal Chari-Dodham, Mauza Chari, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and the sale deed obtained by the defendant/appellant and registered on 12.06.1997 qua 1536/2838 shares of suit land be declared illegal and void ab initio 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from claiming any right, title or interest in the suit land and from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the same and in the alternative a decree for possession of suit land be passed in his favour. 2. Since, the plaintiff died during the trial, his daughters were ordered to be substituted, by the learned trial Court, in place of original plaintiff Amin Chand. 3. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 07.12.2002. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents against the said judgment was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, on 11.11.2005, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and this constrained the defendant-appellant to file the instant regular second appeal before this Court. 4. However a perusal of the judgment rendered by the learned lower appellate Court would reveal that while reversing the findings of learned trial Court it has not at all advert to the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court and has simply chosen to write a separate judgment. 5. It is settled principle of law that right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a valuable legal right of the litigant. 5. It is settled principle of law that right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of learned trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in the first appeal. It is duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a different conclusion from that of the trial Court. While doing so, the judgment of the appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all 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. 6. The scope, ambit and power of the first appellate court while deciding the first appeal have been subject matter of various judicial pronouncements and I may refer to a pronouncement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shasidhar and Others vs. Smt. Ashwini Uma Mathad and another , (2015) AIRSCW 777 wherein it was held as follows: "11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and examining the issue arising in this appeal, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. 12. The powers of the first appellate Court, while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code, are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. 13. 12. The powers of the first appellate Court, while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code, are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. 13. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge V.R. Krishna Iyer, J (as His Lordship then was the judge of Kerala High Court) while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in Kurian Chacko vs. Varkey Ouseph , (1969) AIR Kerala 316, reminded the first appellate Court of its duty as to how the first appeal under Section 96 should be decided. In his distinctive style of writing and subtle power of expression, the learned judge held as under: "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....." 14. This Court in a number of cases while affirming and then reiterating the aforesaid principle has laid down the scope and powers of the first appellate Court under Section 96 of the Code. 15. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 16. In Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. , (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under: ".........the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. 15. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 16. In Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. , (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under: ".........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 as sign 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............" 17. The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar and Others.v. Sangram and Others. , (2001) 4 SCC 756 , wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 18. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith , (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court (at p. 244) stated as under: "3.The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title." 19. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa & Another. , (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code this Court (at pp. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa & Another. , (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code this Court (at pp. 303 -04) observed as follows: "2.A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion........." 20. Again in B.V Nagesh & Another.vs. H.V.Sreenivasa Murthy , (2010) 13 SCC 530 , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: "3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The 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 putforth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. 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. The 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. (Vide Santosh Hazari v.Purushottam Tiwari , (2001) 3 SCC 179 at p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v.Sangram , (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758, para 5.). 5. (Vide Santosh Hazari v.Purushottam Tiwari , (2001) 3 SCC 179 at p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v.Sangram , (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758, para 5.). 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law." 21. The aforementioned cases were relied upon by this Court while reiterating the same principle in State Bank of India & Another. vs. Emmsons International Ltd. & Another. , (2011) 12 SCC 174 . This Court has recently taken the same view on similar facts arising in Vinod Kumar vs. Gangadhar , (2014) 12 SCALE 171 ." 7. Similar issue came up before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Lakshman and Others , (2016) 13 SCC 124 , wherein it was held:- "21. It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in first appeal. It is the duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a conclusion different from that of the Trial Court. 22. Similarly, the powers of the first appellate Court while deciding the first appeal are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. It is apposite to take note of the law on this issue. 23. 22. Similarly, the powers of the first appellate Court while deciding the first appeal are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. It is apposite to take note of the law on this issue. 23. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge V.R. Krishna Iyer, J (as His Lordship then was the judge of Kerala High Court) while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in Kurian Chacko vs. Varkey Ouseph , (1969) AIR Kerala 316, reminded the first appellate Court of its duty to decide the first appeal. In his distinctive style of writing with subtle power of expression, the learned judge held as under: "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 .." 24. This Court also in various cases reiterated the aforesaid principle and laid down the powers of the appellate Court under Section 96 of the Code while deciding the first appeal. 25. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 26. In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. , (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under: ". ..the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. 25. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 26. In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. , (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under: ". ..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 " 27. The above view was followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar and Others. v. Sangram and Others. , (2001) 4 SCC 756 , wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 28. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith , (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court (at p. 244) stated as under: (SCC para 3) "3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title." 29. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa & Another. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title." 29. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa & Another. , (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court (at pp. 303-04) observed as follows: (SCC para 2) "2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion ..." 30. Again in B.V Nagesh & Another. vs. H.V Sreenivasa Murthy , (2010) 13 SCC 530 , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: "3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The 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. 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. 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. The 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. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari , (2001) 3 SCC 179 at p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram , (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758, para 5.) 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law." 31. The aforementioned cases were relied upon by this Court while reiterating the same principle in State Bank of India & Another. vs. Emmsons International Ltd. & Another. , (2011) 12 SCC 174 ." 8. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 11.11.2005 cannot be countenanced and sustained and therefore, this Court has no option, but to set aside the judgment and decree so passed by it and remand the matter for decision afresh. Ordered accordingly. 9. The parties through their learned counsel(s) are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, on 8 thOctober, 2018. 10. Since the suit has been instituted more than two decades back in the year 1997, the learned first Appellate Court is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31st December, 2018. 11. 10. Since the suit has been instituted more than two decades back in the year 1997, the learned first Appellate Court is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31st December, 2018. 11. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.