MUNI REDDY & ANR. versus C. NAGARAJU & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 745 · Decided: 20-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
745
MUNI REDDY & ANR.
v.
C. NAGARAJU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Suit – Appellants-plaintiff filed civil suit against the
respondents-defendants for cancellation of sale deed – Suit was
dismissed by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court –Parties
compromised the matter – Pursuant thereto, High Court by order
dated 10.04.2002 disposed of the appeal in terms of compromise
arrived between the parties –Thereafter, defendant no.2 filed
application in the disposed of appeal to recall the order dated
10.04.2002 – Application was dismissed by the High Court through
order dated 23.07.2002 – However, Supreme Court set aside the
order dated 23.07.2002 and remitted the matter back to the High
Court for fresh consideration including consideration of the
compromise petition – High Court did not pursue the proceedings
in relation to the genuineness of the compromise petition and decided
the appeal on merits – Held: High Court erred in interpreting the
order of the Supreme Court – High Court was required to decide
the compromise petition first because if the compromise was held to
be legal and proper, there was no need to decide the appeal on
merits – Order of the High Court was passed without properly
appreciating the purport of the directions of the Supreme Court –
Case remanded back to the High Court for deciding the matter afresh.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The High Court erred in interpreting the order of
this Court. On mere reading of the order, it is clear that this
Court remanded the matter to the High Court with a request to
decide it afresh in accordance with law including the question of
consideration of the compromise petition. This implied that the
question of consideration of compromise petition was required
[2018] 11  S.C.R. 745
745
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
to be decided first. It is for the simple reason that if the
compromise was held to be legal and proper, there was no need
to decide the second appeal on merits. In other words, the need
to decide the second appeal on merits would have arisen only if
the compromise would have been held illegal and not binding on
the parties concerned.  [Para 15] [750-A-C]
2. The High Court, therefore, erred in not considering the
question of genuineness and legality of the compromise as
complained by defendant No. 2 and straightaway proceeded to
decide the second appeal on merits. In this process undertaken
by the High Court, the question as to whether the compromise
was legal or not could not be gone into on its merits, which it
ought to have been gone into in the first instance. [Para 16] [750-
C-D]
3. Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court is not
legally sustainable as the same was passed without properly
appreciating the purport of the directions of this Court contained
in its earlier order.  It, therefore, caused prejudice to the rights
of the parties. [Para 17] [750-D-E]
4. Thus, case is remanded to the High Court for deciding
the matter afresh as directed above.   The High Court while
deciding the question of genuineness of the compromise
application, as directed by this Court’s earlier order, may consider
it proper to remit the matter to the Trial Court for the purpose of
recording evidence of the parties in time bound period. On
receiving the evidence from the Trial Court, the High Court would
proceed to decide the question in the light of evidence adduced
by the parties. [Paras 18, 19] [750-E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2342
of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2008 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No. 804 of 2001.
K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Trideep Pais, Pranav Jain, Ms. Sanya
Kumar, N. K. Verma, Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, S. Thananjayan,
Ms. Promila, Advs. with him for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
747
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against the final judgment and order dated 02.01.2008 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No.804 of 2001
whereby the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed
by the appellants herein and affirmed the judgment and decree dated
02.08.2001 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural
Dist., Bangalore.
2. In order to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal, it
is necessary to set ou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.