ACHUTANANDA BAIDYA versus PRAFULLYA KUMAR GAYEN AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 08-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ACHUTANANDA BAIDYA 
v. 
PRAFULL YA KUMAR GA YEN AND ORS. 
APRIL 8, 1997 
[G.N. RAY AND S.C. SEN, J.J.) 
B 
Co11stitutio11 of India, 1950 : Arlicle 227. 
Jwisdiction of High Cowt-Nature and scope of-Appellate CJwt 
found that there was 110 oral agreement for recon veyance of alienated C 
land-High Coult inteifered with order of Appellate Cowt 011 ground that the 
.. 
Appellate Court made the finding without considerii.g evidence on 
record-Held : High Court's jwisdictio11 included judicial review as well as 
administrative supe1intendence-High Co wt could inte1f ere with finding of 
f<•ct anived at by the subordinate cowt if i1 was not based on any evidence 
or upon manifest misreading of evidence-ln .he circumstances of the case, D 
High Cowt was justified in inte1fering with the order of the Appellate Court. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 60. 
Oral Evidence-Regarding existence of oral agreement for reconveyance E 
of tra11sfen·ed properfJExistence off actum of oral agreement not proved by 
leading direct evidence as required under S.60-Witnesses deposed that i11 
their presence parties had negotiated about the oral agreement for recon-
veyance-Held : In such circumstance, it will be two hyper tech11ical to 
co11te11d that the witness should 1101 only state that in their presence 11egotia-
tio11 for oral agreement was held but also they heard the talks between the F 
parties--Depositio11 that on verbal discussions in the presence of the witness, 
the pa1ties had come to an agreement for reconveyance necessarily implies 
that the witness had heard such discussion and had come to know about such 
oral agreement-Hence, such contention not accepted-West Bengal Restora-
tion of Alienated Lands Act, 1973, S.4(!). 
The respondent had sold his land to the appellant. Subsequently, the 
respondent tiled an application under Section 4(1)(a) of the West Bengal 
.Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 before the Special Officer for 
restoration of the said land on the ground that the respondent had to sell 
G 
the said land under distress. It was also contended that the appellant and H 
709 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A the respondent had entered into an oral agreement to reconvey the said 
land to the respondent. The Special OITicer allowed the said application. 
The appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the appellant on the 
ground that the sale was not a distress sale and that there was no oral 
agreement for reconveyance. But the High Court allowed the appeal filed 
B 
by the respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution on the ground that 
the finding of the appellate authority that there was no oral agreement for 
reconveyance was not correct because such finding was made without 
considering the evidence on record. Being aggrieved the appellant 
preferred the present appeal. 
C 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the non-existence 
of oral agreement was a finding of fact which was concluded by the 
appellate authority and, therefore, it was not open to the High Court to 
interfere with such a finding of fact under Article 227 of the Constitution; 
that the existence of an oral agreement had not been proved by leading 
D direct evidence as required under Section 60 of the Evidence Act; and that 
the witnesses had only deposed that in their presence there had been a 
discussion between the appellant and the respondent but such witnesses 
had not deposed that they had heard the parties making an oral agree-
ment. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The power of superintendence of the High Court under 
Article 227 of the Constitution is not confined to administrative superin-
tendence only but such power includes within its sweep the power of 
F judicial review. The power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 
is essentially to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals, inferior to the High 
Court, have done what they were required to do. The High Court can 
interfere under Article 227 in cases of erroneous assumption or acting 
beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law ap-
parent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary 
G or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in proce-
dure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material, or 
resulting in manifest injustice. As regards finding of fact of the inferior 
court, the High Court should not quash the judgment of the subordina

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