- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
H.K.N Swami v. Irshad Basith (Dead) By Lrs. .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering with his alleged possession of Site No. 44/6, Jayachamarajendera Road, 38th Division, Bangalore City, measuring 90′ × 110′. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the respondent had failed to prove both title and possession, and also finding the identity of the property doubtful.
The respondent then filed Regular First Appeal No. 116 of 1990 before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, abruptly concluding that title vested in the respondent without undertaking a detailed examination of facts or law. Dissatisfied, the appellant brought the present appeal, resulting in the order summarised here.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, as the first appellate court, erred in deciding the appeal without recording reasoned findings on facts and law regarding the respondent’s title and possession.
- What are the obligatory duties of a first appellate court when adjudicating appeals involving mixed questions of fact and law.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 | Duties of a first appellate court to consider both facts and law and to give reasoned findings on all issues. | The Court remitted the matter to the High Court with a direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with the principles stated in Madhukar v. Sangram. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasised that a first appeal is both on facts and law, granting parties the right to a full re-hearing on all issues. It found that the High Court failed to:
- Analyse and appreciate the evidence concerning title and possession.
- Record specific findings on any of the issues framed in the suit.
- Provide reasons to support its conclusion that the respondent held title.
Characterising the High Court’s judgment as “cryptic” and reasonless, the Court held that such an approach contravenes established appellate standards, particularly those articulated in Madhukar v. Sangram. Consequently, the judgment could not be sustained.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s judgment is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.
Direct consequences include:
- The High Court must rehear Regular First Appeal No. 116 of 1990, examining both factual and legal issues and issuing a reasoned judgment.
- The interim stay earlier granted by the High Court will remain in force until the appeal is decided, subject to variation upon application by either party.
- The Supreme Court directed expeditious disposal in view of the long pendency since 1990.
No new legal precedent was set, but the decision reinforces existing jurisprudence on the obligatory standards for first appellate courts.
Order
1. The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) from interfering with his possession in property bearing Site No. 44/6 in Jayachamarajendera Road, presently 38th Division, Bangalore City, measuring 90′ × 110′. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title as also the possession over the suit property. It was also found that the identity of the property was also in doubt.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial court, the respondent filed a Regular First Appeal No. 116 of 1990 in the High Court. Without recording a finding that the respondent was in possession of the property as also the title to the property abruptly concluded that the title of the property is found to be in favour of the respondent. Finding as to the title has not been arrived at by the High Court on appreciation of evidence.
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. The order of the High Court is cryptic and the same is without assigning any reason.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court to decide it afresh keeping in view the observations made by this Court in Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 while dealing with the first appeal.
5. The Registry is directed to remit the record to the High Court forthwith. Since this first appeal pertains to the year 1990, we would request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
6. Interim stay granted by the High Court during the pendency of the first appeal shall continue till the disposal of the appeal subject to its variation on an application being made by either of the parties.
7. Both the IAs are dismissed as infructuous.
Alert