LexNEMAI CHANDRA DEY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus PRASANTA CHANDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1076 1076 NEMAI CHANDRA DEY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. PRASANTA CHANDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 14699-14701 of 2015) APRIL 19, 2022 [K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or. XLI, r. 31 – Duty of first Appellate Court – Reappreciation of evidence – Consideration of arguments and arriving at findings – Suit was filed by the plaintiff (wife of the uncle of the first defendant) seeking inter alia declaration of two documents i.e. gift deeds as void – Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a pardahnashin lady and the character of the document was not brought to the notice of the plaintiff – Gift deeds were declared void – Trial Court decreed the suit – First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal without reappreciating the evidence led by the parties – In the second appeal, the High Court proceeded to find that the judgment of the trial Court was elaborate and detailed – Also, the contentions of the plaintiff was inevitable and the Courts below was correct in arriving at the findings – On appeal, held: First Appellate Court has not discharged its duties as the first Appellate Court – It is the bounden duty of the first Appellate Court to deal with appeals within the confines of law and keeping in mind the principles which have been enumerated u/Or. XLI, r.31 and various judgments of the Supreme Court – That means the first Appellate Court will reappreciate the evidence, consider the arguments and apply the law and arrive at findings – Only then limiting of the jurisdiction of the High Court to only cases where substantial question of law arises would be justified – Approach to the Supreme Court u/Art. 136 could be on rare occasions only – Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter remanded to the first Appellate Court. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The High court has proceeded on the basis that the consideration by the first appellate Court to the findings of the trial Court constituted concurrent findings as if this is a case A B C D E F G H 1077 where the first appellate Court has discharged its duties and given its approval to the trial Court findings. One could have understood the High Court so holding in a case where the first appellate Court had considered the appeal in the manner provided by law and as established by long line of judgments. It is clear that this is indeed one such case where by virtue of the first appellate Court having failed to discharge its duties, in the facts of this case, remand to the first appellate Court is warranted. This is so for the reason that the suit was contested. Parties led elaborate evidence. What is taken in defence was the validity of the two registered gift deeds, which according to the first defendant were executed lawfully. In this connection there is a contention raised by the appellants that the plaintiff has executed a number of documents by way of sale deeds. The plaintiff, according to the appellants was, in fact, literate, though a pardahnashin lady. The first defendant has a case that it was a suit which was laid on the strength of the influence wielded by the nephew of the plaintiffs- sister in whose house the plaintiff was staying for some time. The scribe has been examined as a witness. The attesting witness has been examined. In this case, no doubt, the plaintiff has given evidence that she executed the gift deeds in question on the basis of her being under the impression that power of attorney was executed. There were other items of evidence which were before the Court also. This Court is of the view that the interest of justice do require a remand to the first appellate Court in the nature of the order which has been passed by the Courts. Accordingly, the impugned judgments will stand set aside. The appeals are allowed and the case is remanded back to the first appellate Court. [Paras 14 & 15][1082-E-H; 1083-A-D Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam (2001) 3 SCC 179 : [2001] 1 SCR 948 – relied on. Madhukar and Others v. Sangram and Others (2001) 4 SCC 756 : [2001] 3 SCR 138; Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai and Others AIR 1963 1203 : [1963] 1 SCR 456 - referred to. NEMAI CHANDRA DEY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. PRASANTA CHANDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. A B C D E F G H 1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [2001] 3 SCR 138 referred to Para 6 [2001] 1 SCR 948 relied on Para 6 [1963] 1 SCR 45
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.