LALITESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS. versus S. P. SRIVASTAVA (D) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 15-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 11 S.C.R. I 
LALITESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
S. P. SRIVASTAVA (D) THR. LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4426of2011) 
DECEMBER 15,2016 
(R. K. AGRAWAL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XL/, n: 31, 27 -
Judgment in appeal - Duty of appellate court - Suit by first 
respondent-plaintiff against second respondent-defendant for 
declaration of title, dismissed by trial court - Appellants, purchasers 
of various extent. of plots in the suit property from the second 
responde11t, impleaded in High Court in first appeal - Suit decreed 
by High Court, reversing the findings of trial court, without giving 
appellants an opportu11ity to adduce any evide11ce or make a11y 
submission - On appeal, held: A11 appellate court is the final court 
of facts - First appellate court ought to state the points for 
determinatio11, the decision thereon and the reasons for such 
decision - Further, when the first appellate court reverses the findi11gs 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
of the trial court, it must record the findi11gs in clear terms explaining 
how the reasoni11g of the trial court was erroneous - In the instant 
case, High Court neither framed the points for determination nor 
discussed the evidence adduced by the defendant and considered 
011ly the evidence adduced by Plaintiff - Being the first appellate 
court, it should have co11sidered the evidence adduced by both 
Plaintiff as well as Defenda11t - Before the trial court, only the 
second respondent-Defendant was the party - However, having· F 
impleaded the appellants as parties in the first appeal, High Court 
ought to have given an opportunity to the appellants to adduce 
additional evidence to substantiate their claim that they were bona 
fide purchasers for value - Matter remitted back to High Court for 
fresh consideration 011 merits - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.34. 
Remitting the matter back to the High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 As per Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the judgment 
G 
of the first appellate court must explicitly set out the points for 
determination, record its reasons thereon and to give its 
reasonings based on evidence. It is well settled that the first 
H 
I 
2 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f2016] 1 I S.C.R. 
appellate court shall state the points for determination, the 
decision thereon and the reasons for decision. However, it is 
equally well settled that mere omission to frame point/points for 
determination does not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate 
court provided that the first appellate court records its reasons 
based on evidence adduced by both the parties. [Para 11][8-A-D) 
1.2 An appellate court is the final court of facts. The 
judgment of the appellate court must therefore reflect court's 
application of mind and record its findings supported by reasons. 
The points which arise for determination by a court of first appeal 
must cover all important questions involved in the case and they 
should not be general and vague. Even though the appellate court 
would be justified in taking a different view on question of fact 
that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by the 
trial judge in arriving at the finding in question. When appellate 
court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need 
not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by trial 
court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by 
trial court would ordinarily suffice. However, when the first 
appellate court reverses the findings of the trial court, it must 
record the findings in clear terms explaining how the reasonings 
of the trial court is erroneous. [ Paras 12, 13] [8-D-E; 10-G-H; 
11-A-B) 
Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar (2015) 1 SCC 391: 2014 
(10) SCR 1050 - relied on. 
1.3 In the light of the above, when the present case is 
considered, it is found that in terms of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, 
the High Court has neither framed the points for determination 
nor discussed the evidence adduced by the defendants. The 
documentary evidence adduced by the first respondent-Plaintiff 
was refuted by the second respondent-Defendant. To support 
his defence plea, second respondent-Defendant had adduced oral 
evidence by examining number of witnesses. That apart, second 
respondent-Defendant mainly relied upon the admission of first 
respondent-Plaintiff. [Paral4) [11-B-D] 
1.4 The High Court did not seem to have examined the 
above admission of the first respondent-Plaintiff relied on by 
second-r

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