JANARDHAN NARASIMHA NAYAK versus BALWANT VENKATESH KULKARNI AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 626 · Decided: 07-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JANARDHAN NARASIMHA NAY AK 
v. 
1 
BAL WANT VENKA TESH KULKARNI AND ANR. 
MARCH 7, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PAl'fTA, JJ.] 
Indian Contract Act, 1872/Specijic Relief Act, 1963: 
.) 
' 
c 
Suit for specific performance filed by respondent no.I-Decreed by 
trial Courl-Appeal dismissed by first Appellate Court-Second appeal 
allowed by High Court-On appeal, Held: No reason indicated by the High 
Court to set aside the order of first Appellate Court-Hence, matter remitted 
to High Court for disposal afresh on merits--Civil Procedure Code, 1908-
. Judgment/Order. 
D 
Respondent No. I, the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance 
of the contract of sale. Suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the appeal was 
dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Second appeal was allowed by the High 
Court. Hence the.present appeal. 
E 
Appellant contended that the second appeal was allowed by High Court 
without indicating any basis and reason; and that the entire approach of First 
Appellate Court was vitiated by pre-conceived mind that the agreement of sale 
cannot be given effect once there was a sale in between the parties. 
Respondents submitted that though the judgment of the High Court is 
F not happily worded, yet in essence the High Court has found First Appellate 
Court's conclusion to be vitiated. 
• 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Merely because the Trial Court had occasion to see the witness 
G that cannot be a ground to hold that First Appellate Court had pre-conceived 
notion. No reasons had been indicated by the High Court to set aside the order 
of the First Appellate Court even without analysing the evidence and the 
,Y· 
respective stand. Hence, the maUer is remitted to the High Court for fresh 
disposal on merits. [Paras 6 and 7) (628'-D-F) 
H 
626 
'I 
JANARDHANNARASIMHA NAY AK1·. BALWANTVENKATESH KULKARNI [PASA YAT,J.J 627 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5807 of2000. 
A· 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 15.7.1998 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.S.A. No. 733/1992. 
Kiran Suri and S.J. Amit for the Appeliant. 
Vijay Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
DR ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I . Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the C 
second appeal filed by the respondent no. I under Section I 00 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC'). 
2. Respondent No. I is the plaintiff and had filed the suit for specific 
performance of the contract of sale dated 31.1.1972. Suit was decreed by the 
Trial Court and the appeal was dismissed by the First Appel·late Court. The D 
second defendant-respondent no.2 took the stand that he was the purchaser 
subsequent to the agreement for sale, he had no knowledge of the agreement 
and had no notice of the sale and he is not bound by the earlier agreement 
of sale. The Trial Court came to hold that defendant no.2 had knowledge of 
the agreement. The First Appellate Court held that either he had dishonest 
notion or had notice. At the time of the admission in the second appeal the E 
following question of law was formulated: 
' 
"Whether the Court below was just in placing reliance on the order 
of the Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the permission of sale of 
the land and thus hold against the appellant?" 
3. Thereafter with the following observations/conclusions the second 
appeal was allowed. 
F 
"When the trial court on evidence has come to the conclusion on 
seeing the witness in the box, appreciated the demeanor, the appellate 
court without considering the points raised by the trial court went on G 
discussing the legal position and came to a different conclusion which 
I have no hesitation, to set aside on the ground that they are not 
warranted by the facts of the case. The entire approach of the appellate 
court is vitiated by the pre-considered mind that the agreement of sale 
cannot be given effect to once there was a sale in between the parties. H 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
This view is certainly wrong and under such pre-considered notion, 
the approach made by the appellate court which has resulted in wrong 
delivery of the judgment." 
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the second appeal 
was allowed without indicating any basis and reason. The conclusions are 
B also without any foundation. It was erroneously held that 

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