A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPA versus SANGONDEPPA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 19-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 12 S.C.R. 397 
A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPA 
v. 
SANGONDEPPA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10490 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 19, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI 
AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
0.41, r.31 - First appeal - Disposal of - Held: A regular 
first appeal is to be disposed of, particularly, in the light of 0. 
41 r.31 - It mandates that appellate court has to frame points 
for determination, decision thereon, reasons for the decision 
A 
B 
c 
and where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, 
D 
the relief to which appellant is entitled -- First appeal is a 
valuable right and unless restricted by law, the whole case is 
open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law --
Accordingly, judgment of appellate court must reflect its 
conscious application of mind and record findings supported 
E 
by reasons, on all issues arising along with contentions put 
forth by both sides -- In the instant case, relevant aspects have 
not been noticed and adverted to by High Court -- Appeal has 
been decided in an unsatisfactory manner which falls short 
of considerations expected from the court of first appeal --
F 
Judgment of High Court is set aside and regular first appeal 
is remanded to it for disposal afresh. 
B. V. Nagesh and Another vs. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy 
2010 (11) SCR 784 = (2010) 13 sec 530 - relied on. 
G 
Case Law Reference: 
2010 (11) SCR 784 
relied on 
para 7 
397 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
10490 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2006 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RF.A. No. 238 of 
B 2004. 
c 
D 
Sabha for the Appellant. 
Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Lave Kumar Sharma, V.N. 
Raghupathy for the Respondents. 
The folowing order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree 
dated 19.08.2006 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 238 of 
2004. 
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through 
E the impugned judgment, submitte~d that the same cannot be 
sustained since being a Regular First Appeal the High Court 
ought to have considered the evidence on record and findings 
recorded by the trial Judge. In other words, according to the 
counsel, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained 
F in the absence of appreciation of evidence and acceptability 
of the findings recorded by the trial Court. 
G 
4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the 
impugned decision of the High Court. 
5. In the light of the limited submission, we have carefully 
perused the reasoning of the High Court and we agree with the 
contention raised by the counsel for the appellant. 
6. In a series of decisions, this Court has h!Jhlighted how 
H a regular first appeal is to be disposed of, particularly, in the 
A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPA v. SANGONDEPPA 399 
&ANR. 
light of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. It mandates that the appellate 
A 
Court has to frame points for determination, decision thereon, 
reasons for the decision and where the decree· appealed from 
is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 
Such recourse has not been followed by the High Court, while 
disposing of the regular first appeal. 
B 
7. It is not in dispute that 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. 
Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate Court must reflect 
its conscious application of mind and record findings supported 
C 
by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions 
put forth by both the sides. These principles have been 
reiterated in B. V. Nagesh and Another vs. H. V. Sreenivasa 
Murthy, (201 O) 13 sec 530. 
8. By applying the above principles, we are of the view that 
D 
the relevant aspects, as mentioned above, have not been 
noticed and adverted to by the High Court. The appeal has 
been decided in an unsatisfactory manner which falls short of 
considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. 
E . 
9. In the light of the above conclusion, without expressing 
anything on the merits of the claim of both the parties, we set 
aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand 
the regular first appeal for fresh disposal. 
10. We request the High Court to restore RFA No. 238 of 
2004 (corrected as RFA Nos. 622-623 of 2007) on its file 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.