C. VENKATA SWAMY versus H. N. SHIVANNA (D) BY L.R. & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 04-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 1 
C. VENKATA SWAMY 
v. 
H. N. SHIVANNA (D) BY L.R. & ANR. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.670-671 of2011) 
DECEMBER 04, 2017 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.96 r/w Or.41 r.31 - First 
appeal - Power/duty of appellate court under s.96 while deciding 
first appeal - Held: A right to file first appeal against the decree 
under s.96 is a valuable legal right of the litigant - The jurisdiction 
C 
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, 
D 
either of affirnumce or difference - In the instant case, single judge 
of High Court 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 - Thus, the disposal of the first 
E 
appeals was not in conformity with the requirements of s.96 read 
with Or.41 r.31 of the Code - Matter remitted to High Court for 
consideration afresh . 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the maUcr to High Court, 
the Court 
HELD : 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 
F 
the case and discussing the arguments raised by the parties in 
support of their case. In other words, the disposal of the two first 
G 
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 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B 
independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of affirmance 
or difference. [Paras 10, 11) [ 4-C-E] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
AIR 
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by 
L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179 : [2001) 1 SCR 948; Madhukar 
& Ors. v. Sangram & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 756 : [2001) 
3 SCR 138 ; H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 
SCC 243 ; Jagannath v. Arulappa & Am:, (2005) 12 
SCC 303 ; B. V. Nagesh & Am: v. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy 
(2010) 13 SCC 530 : [2010) 11 SCR 784 ; State Bank 
of India & Am: v. Emmsons International Ltd. & Am: 
(2011) 12 SCC 174 : [2011) 10 SCR 436 ; Union of 
India v. K. V. Lakshman & Ors. (2016) 13 SCC 124 -
relied on. 
Kurian Chacko v. Varkey Ouseph AIR 1969 Kerala 
316 - approved. 
~ase Law Reference 
1969 Kerala 316 
approved 
Para 13 
[2001) 1 SCR 948 
relied on 
Para 16 
[2001) 3 SCR 138 
relied on 
Para 17 
c2005) 10 sec 243 
relied on 
Para 18 
c2005) 12 sec 303 
relied on 
Para 19 
[2010) 11 SCR 784 
relied on 
Para 20 
[2011] 10 SCR 436 
relied on 
Para 21 
c2016) 13 sc;c 124 
relied on 
Para 21 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 670-
671 of201 l. 
C. VENKATA SWAMY v. H.N. SHIVANNA (D) BY L.R. & ANR. 
3 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2006 of the High Court 
A 
of Karnataka at Bangalore in R. F. A. No. 158 c/w. R. F. A. No. 159 of 
2005. 
Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv, S.J. Amith, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs for 
the Appellant. 
Rajesh Mahale, Adv for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. These appeals are filed 
B 
by the plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 02.11.2006 
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First c 
Appeal Nos.158 and 159 of2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the 
appeals filed by the appellant herein 
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Even the issue 
arising in these appeals is a short one. It would be clear from the facts 
mentioned hereinbelow. 
3. The appellant is plaintiff in 0.S. No. 6640/1996 and defendant 
in 0.S. No. 2150 of 1992 whereas the respondents are de

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