LexU. MANJUNATH RAO versus U. CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2017] 7 S.C.R. 608 U. MANJUNATH RAO v. U. CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR. (Civil Appeal No.9951 of2017) AUGUST04,2017 [DIPAK MISRA AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.f Judgment - Unreasoned Judgment - Trial court directed rectification of the error in the partition deed - High Court copiously quoted from the judgment of the trial court and held that there were no infirmities in the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal without any reasons to support the judgment in appeal - Held: High Court has neither analysed the evidence brought on record nor has answered the issues raised in law - Reproduction of few passages from the trial court and ultimately D referring to certain exhibited documents in a cryptic manner, will not convert an unreasoned judgment to a reasoned one - There has been no analysis of facts or law - Analysis and reasons are to be manifest, when that is not done, the judgment of High Court becomes indefensible - Further, judgment of appellate Court must, reflect its E conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with contentions put forth, and passed by the parties for decision of appellate court. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On perusal of impugned judgment, it is clearly F demonstrable that the High Court bas neither analysed the evidence brought on record nor bas it answe~ed the issues raised in law. Stating the facts and thereafter reproducing few passages from the trial Court and ultimately referring to certain exhibited documents in a cryptic manner, will not convert an unreasoned G judgment to a reasoned one. In fact, the Judge has posed the question about the defensibility of the ultimate direction by the trial Court and thereafter proceeded to quote paragraphs from the trial Court judgment. Posing a question which is relevant for adjudication of the appeal is not enough. There bas to be proper analysis of the same. That apart, there are other issues they H 608 U. MANJUNATH RAO v. U.CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR. 609 deserved to be dealt with. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is A that the judgment passed by the High Court is not a reasoned one. [Para 6] (612-B-D] 2. It is well settled in law that the reason is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the judgment. Absence of B analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but mummifies the core spirit of the judgment. A Judge has to constantly remind himself that absence of reason in the process of adjudication makes the ultimate decision pregnable. [Para 7] [612-E] 3. On a perusal of the Or.XL!, r.31 Rule of CPC, it is quite C · clear that the judgment of the appellate court has to state the reasons for the decision. In the case at hand, the Judge has really not ascribed any reason. There has been no analysis of facts or law. There is no discussion with regard to the points urged. While agreeing with the general approval of reasons to support the conclusions of the judgment in appeal, the High Court has to D keep in view the language employed in Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and the view expressed in Santosh Hazari case. Analysis and reason are to be manifest. When that is not done, needless to say, the judgment of the High Court becomes indefensible. [Paras 12, 14] [615-D; 616-E] E Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs. (2001) 3 sec 179 : 120011 1 SCR 948 - relied on. State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (dead) through his LRs. (2000) 5 SCC 652 : (2000] 3 SCR 958; Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh AIR 1951 SC 120: [1950] SCR 781; Madhukar and others v. Sangram and others (2001)-4 SCC 756: [2001) 3 SCR 138; H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (dead) by LRs. (2005) 10 SCC 243; State Bank of Jndia and another v. Emmson International Limited and another (2001) 12 SCC 174; Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao and another AIR 1974 SC 2044 - referred to. F G H 610 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2017] 7 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [2000] 3 SCR 95S referred to Para7 [2001] 1 SCR 94S relied on Paras [1950] SCR 7Sl referred to Paras [2001] 3 SCR 13S referred to Para 9 (2005) 10 sec 243 referred to Para 10 (2001) 12 sec 174 referred to Para 11 AIR 1974 SC 2044 referred to Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.9951 of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2014 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Fir
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.