R. S. ANJAYYA GUPTA versus THIPPAIAH SETTY & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 01-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
869
R. S. ANJAYYA GUPTA
v.
THIPPAIAH SETTY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7418 of 2009)
JULY 01, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.96 and Or.41,r. 31 –
Respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) filed a suit for partition of
certain properties against appellant (defendant no.1), respondent
no.2 (defendant no.2), and original defendant no.3-father –
Respondent no. 1 pleaded that suit properties were purchased
ostensibly in the name of the appellant, however, the said properties
were purchased from joint family funds – The appellant/defendant
no.1 denied that suit properties were purchased by family from joint
family funds or they belonged to the Joint Hindu family and
submitted that he was absolute owner thereof since he had purchased
it out of his own funds – Trial Court found it in favour of respondent
no.1/plaintiff and partitioned the suit properties amongst the parties
– High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court – Review Petition
was rejected – On appeal, held: The first appellate court must
analyse the entire evidence produced by the concerned parties and
express its opinion in the proper sense of the jurisdiction vested in
it and by elucidating, analysing and arriving at the conclusion that
the appeal is devoid of merit – In the impugned judgment High
Court after reproduction of the submission made by the parties,
straightaway proceeded to affirm the opinion of the Trial Court –
Appellant has also raised formidable issues on facts as well as on
law which ought to receive proper attention of the High Court, the
first instance in exercise of powers u/s.96 of CPC – Additionally,
some of the documents which were crucial, were not exhibited
although the same were submitted during the trial – Thus, parties
relegated before the High Court for consideration of the first appeal
afresh.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. After cogitating over the rival submissions made
during the elaborate arguments by the respective counsel and
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 869
869
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
who had invited our attention to the pleadings and evidence on
record, this Court deem it to appropriate to relegate the parties
before the High Court for consideration of the first appeal afresh.
It is said so for more than one reason. The first is that, the High
Court has disposed of the first appeal by a cryptic judgment. For,
the first five paragraphs of the impugned judgment are only
reproduction of the submissions made by the counsel for the
concerned parties. After doing so, the High Court straightaway
proceeded to affirm the opinion of the Trial Court that the suit
properties forming part of Schedule A and Schedule B to the plaint,
are the joint family properties. [Para 16] [878-G; 879-A-B]
2. In the present case the suit came to be filed by the
respondent No.1 as back as in 1982 and that the present appeal
has remained pending in this Court from 2009, against the
impugned judgment of the High Court. This Court was at one
stage persuaded to consider and examine the matter on its own
merits instead of relegating the parties before the High Court.
But, it is noticed that the appellant has raised formidable issues
on facts as well as on law which ought to receive proper attention
of the High Court, in the first instance in exercise of powers
under Section 96 of CPC. Additionally, the High Court will have
to address the grievance of the appellant that some of the
documents, which in the opinion of the appellant are crucial have
not been even exhibited although the same were submitted during
the trial, as noted in the written submissions filed by the appellant.
Therefore, this Court does not wish to deviate from the consistent
approach of this Court in the reported cases that the first appellate
court must analyse the entire evidence produced by the concerned
parties and express its opinion in the proper sense of the
jurisdiction vested in it and by elucidating, analysing and arriving
at the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merit. [Para 18]
[881-F-G; 882-A-C]
C. Venkata Swamy v. H.N. Shivanna (Dead) by Legal
Representative & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 604 : [2017] 12
SCR 1 ; Madhukar & Ors. v. Sangram & Ors. (2001) 4
SCC 756 : [2001] 3 SCR 138 ; Mudi Gowda Gowdappa
Sankh v. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh (1969) 1
SCC 386 : [1969] 3 SCR 245 ; G. Narayana Raju
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
871
(dead) by his Legal Representative v. G. Chamaraju &
Ors. AIR 1968 SC 1276 

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