Supreme Court of India
A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPA versus SANGONDEPPA & ANR.
- Decided
- 19 November 2013
- Judges listed
- P. SATHASIVAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, RANJAN GOGOI
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [2013] 12 S.C.R. 397 · 2013 INSC 759
- Also cited as
- (2013) 14 SCALE 384
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 398, margin B
This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2006 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 238 of 2004.
p. 398, margin B
Learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the impugned judgment, submitte~d that the same cannot be sustained since being a Regular First Appeal the High Court ought to have considered the evidence on record and findings recorded by the trial Judge. In other words, according to the counsel, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in the absence of appreciation of evidence and acceptability of the findings recorded by the trial Court.
p. 398, margin B
Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned decision of the High Court.
p. 398, margin F
In the light of the limited submission, we have carefully perused the reasoning of the High Court and we agree with the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant.
p. 398, margin F
In a series of decisions, this Court has h!Jhlighted how a regular first appeal is to be disposed of, particularly, in the light of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. It mandates that the appellate A Court has to frame points for determination, decision thereon, reasons for the decision and where the decree· appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Such recourse has not been followed by the High Court, while disposing of the regular first appeal. B
pp. 398–399, margin F
It is not in dispute that the first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported C by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth by both the sides. These principles have been reiterated in B. V. Nagesh and Another vs. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (201 O) 13 sec 530.
p. 399
By applying the above principles, we are of the view that the relevant aspects, as mentioned above, have not been noticed and adverted to by the High Court. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner which falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. E .
p. 399
In the light of the above conclusion, without expressing anything on the merits of the claim of both the parties, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal for fresh disposal.
p. 399
We request the High Court to restore RFA No. 238 of 2004 (corrected as RFA Nos. 622-623 of 2007) on its file and make all endeavour for early disposal, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. G
p. 399
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. R.P. Appeal disposed of.
p. 399