2017 (12) TMI 1843 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the land described in detail in the plaint - HELD THAT - The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned for the reason that the Single Judge dismissed the appeals very cursorily and without undertaking any appreciation of evidence, dealing with various issues arising in the case and discussing the arguments raised by the parties in support of their case. In other words, the disposal of the two first appeals could not be said to be in conformity with the requirements of Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code. 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 arrive at its own independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of affirmance or difference - 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. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against final judgment and order, Dismissal of appeals by High Court, Duty of first Appellate Court, Powers of first Appellate Court, Requirement of remand for fresh decision.

Analysis:
The plaintiff filed appeals against the final judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka, which dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant. The suits involved declarations and injunctions related to a specific land. The Trial Court dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1. The Single Judge of the High Court also dismissed the first appeals without proper appreciation of evidence and discussion of the raised arguments. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment, and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of the first Appellate Court to decide appeals diligently. It highlighted the wide jurisdiction of the first Appellate Court to review both facts and law. Various judicial pronouncements were referenced to underscore the importance of the first Appellate Court's role in thoroughly examining all issues and evidence before reaching a decision. The Court cited previous cases to emphasize that the first Appellate Court must provide reasoned findings on all issues raised during the appeal process.

The Supreme Court referred to past judgments to reiterate that the first Appellate Court must address all issues and evidence presented by parties before reaching a decision. The Court stressed that the first appeal is a valuable right for litigants, allowing for a comprehensive rehearing on both factual and legal matters. The judgment of the first Appellate Court should reflect a conscious application of mind, supported by reasons, on all issues raised during the appeal process.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The Court refrained from making any observations on the merits of the controversy, emphasizing that the High Court should decide the appeals independently and expeditiously in accordance with the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of a thorough and reasoned approach by the first Appellate Court in deciding appeals.