LexMADHUKAR AND ORS. versus SANGRAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r=
A
MADHUKAR AND ORS.
v.
SANGRAM AND ORS.
"
APRIL 20, 2001
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 96.
Appeal-Court of first appeal-Duty and obligations as First Appellate
c Court-Duty to deal with all the issues and evidence led by parties.
Declarat01y suit-Respondent seeking declaration of joint ownership
t'--
along with defendant No.1 ofsuit property-Substantial documentmy evidence
)
and oral evidence noticed and appreciated by trial court-Trial court
t=
dismissed the suit on two grounds-First, suit barred by limitation-Second,
D decision in the earlier suit operated as res .iudicata against defendant No.1
only-Appeal Filed by plaintiffs-High Court setting aside the impugned
judgment and decree-High Court did not consider either of two grounds on
which trial court had dismissed the suit-Judgment of High Court singularly
-...
silent of any discussion either of documentary evidence or oral evidence-
E
Appeal before Supreme Court-Held it was the duty of the High Court to deal
(
with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its
findings-It failed to discharge the obligation placed on a first appellate
court-Appeal was decided in a very unsatisfactory manner-It falls short of
considerations which are expected from the court of firs/ appeal-Impugned
decree and judgment set aside-Appeal remitted to High Court for fresh
F disposal in accordance with law.
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (Dead) by L. Rs. JT(2001) (2)
SC 407, referred to.
"',.....-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2918 of
~
2001.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.99 of the Karnataka High Court
J="
in RF.A. No. 103 of 1993.
P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellants.
H
D.P. Chaturvedi and S.N. Bhat for the Respondents.
138
r.
;
_,
'{
MADHUKARv. SANGRAM
139
"'
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
A-
,•
-,I
Leave granted.
Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they along with
defendant No. 1 were the joint owners in possession of the suit property and
also for a declaration that gift deed bearing No. 3042/65 and the two sale B
deeds dated 28.02.1989 were ineffeytive insofar as the rights of the plaintiffs
are concerned. SuiLwas dismissed by the Trial Court. A perusal of the order
of the Trial Court shows that suit was dismissed inter-alia on the ground (1)
of limitation and (2) on the ground that decision in an earlier suit, being OS
No. 93/71 operated as res judicata against defendant No. 1 only. Before the c
Trial Court, documentary evidence was led, including placing on record copies
of enteries of public records and decision of the earlier suit (O.S. No. 93/71).
Against the dismissal of the suit, a first appeal was filed by the plaintiffs-
respondents in the High Court. The High Court, after noticing some details
from the judgment of the Trial Court as also pleadings of the parties, opined D
that the questions to be decided in the appeal were:
-;
"(l) Whether the relationship claimed by the parties are true?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?"
After deciding these questions in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, E
the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and
allowed the first appeal. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by special leave
by the appellants-contesting defendants.
We have carefully perused the judgment and decree of the High Court
in the first appeal. We find that substantial documentary evidence had been F
placed before the trial court including certified copies of certain public records
besides copy of the judgment and decree of the earlier suit (O.S. No. 93/71).
Oral evidence had also been led by the parties before the trial court, which
was noticed and appreciated by the trial court. However, the impugned
judgment in the first appeal, is singularly silent of any discussion either of G
documentary evidence or oral evidence. Not only that, we find that though
trial court had dismissed the suit on ground of limitation as also on the
ground that the decision in the earlier suit (O.S. No. 93/71) operated as res
..I
judicata against defendant No. 1 only the High Court has not even considered,
much less discussed, correctness of either of the two grounds on which the
trial court had dismissed the suit. Sitting as a Court of first appal, it was the H
r- 'r
140
SUPREMEExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.