GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus SMT. GOWRAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

•
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SMT. GOWRAMMA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
[DR. ARI.HT PASA Y AT AND P. SATHASIVAM, .JJ.] 
B 
Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976: Application by owner 
of land for permission to cut trees-Conditional permission granted-
While granting transport permits, Government transported some c 
portion of timbers to their godowns-Claim of owner for price of 
timber transported-Held: Not sustainable in the absence of challenge 
to the conditions stipulated in permission granted. 
Precedent: Reliance on a decision without looking into the factual 
background of the case before the Court-Held: Not proper-Decision D 
is precedent on its own facts-Observations of Courts are neither to 
be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute-These 
observations to be read in the context in which they are stated-Judges 
interpret words of statutes~Their words not to be interpreted as 
statutes- Judgment-Interpretation of 
E 
The plaintiffs are owners of the suit land. They had grown silver 
wood and other varieties of trees on the suit land. The plaintiff applied 
for permission for cutting and felling of silver wood and other trees 
on the suit land. The defendants granted the permission. In terms F 
of the permission, the plaintiffs cut and felled the trees. While issuing 
the transport permit to the plaintiffs, the defendant directed issuance 
of transport permit and ordered to transfer certain timber to 
Government depot. A suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiffs 
claiming that they were entitled to the value of the timber transported G 
to Government godown at the prevailing rates. The defendants took 
the stand that the permission was conditional and there was never 
any challenge to the conditional permission granted and after having 
accepted the permission by plaintiff with the conditions stipulated, 
939 
H 
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A it was not open to the plaintiffs to lay a claim for the value of the 
trees. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that in the absence 
of challenge to the conditional permission, there was no question of 
the plaintiffs making a claim for value of the timber transported. The 
High Court allowed the appeal filed by plaintiffs by placing reliance 
B on certain judgment of High Court wherein it was held that in respect 
of reserved trees, the ownership was not with the Government but 
was with the owner of the land. Hence the present appeal; 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. It is an admitted position that the permission was 
granted with conditions. It is also not disputed that PW-I, who was 
examined in support of the plaintiffs case, accepted that the trees 
in question were reserved trees. The Trial Court took note of this 
fact and noted that in the cross-examination of PW-1, he has 
D specifically admitted that the Nandi trees are reserved trees. 
Further, the High Court lightly brushed aside the stand of the State 
and its functionaries that in the absence of any challenge to the 
conditions stipulated in the permission granted, it was not open to 
the plaintiffs to claim value of the Timber. The High Court, in the 
E impugned judgment, referred to some judgments rendered in writ 
petitions. [Para 8] [944-B-D] 
2.1. Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual 
background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision 
is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. 
F It is not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgment that 
constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding 
a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this 
reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the 
ratio decidendi. According to the well-settled theory of precedents, 
G every decision contains three basic postulates : (i) findings of 
material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts 
is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible 
facts; (ii) statements of the principles oflaw applicable to the legal 
problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the 
H combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it 
GOVERNMENTOFKARNATAKA v. SMT.GOWRAMMA 941 
-
actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and A 
not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from 
the various observations made 

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