DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
September 09, 2021.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao.
PARTIES:
Appellant – K.N. Nagarajappa
Respondent – H. Narasimha Reddy
SUBJECT
According to the Supreme Court of India, the High Court is empowered to exercise limited factual review under 103 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under Section 100, the jurisdiction of the High Court is based upon the framing of substantial question of law.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
- Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code – Second appeal has been defined under this section. A second appeal is made against the judgement of the lower court which was heard is known as the first appeal. An appeal is a statutory right, not merely a legal right. The recourse to this right can be made only when it is expressly mentioned in the statute.
- Section 103 of the Civil Procedure Code – The power of the High Court to determine issues of fact is defined in this section. In the second appeal, if the evidences and records are sufficient, it can determine any necessary issue to dispose of the case in any such issue which has not been determined by the lower appellate court or both the court of first instance or any issue which is wrongly determined by the lower courts.
OVERVIEW
- A registered sale deed was executed in respect of the land and on the same day a transaction was held related to the sale. The respondent filed a case against the appellant (defendant in this case) for declaration of title and recovery of possession. This is called as the first suit.
- The registered sale deed is the proof of the respondent buying land from the appellant.
- Though the appellant had put the respondents in possession later on by making some changes moved the land tribunal for occupancy right and proceeded to dispose of the respondents.
Issues
- Whether the lower appellate court was justified in granting the decree in favor of the respondent on the basis of Exb-3?
ANALYSIS
- In the first suit, the respondent claimed the possession on the basis of the registered sale deed. In the second suit, the appellants claimed that the registered sale deed is a nominal document and in fact, it was made for security. Also, it was claimed that after the payment, the possession was to be reconveyed.
- By the order of the land tribunal, the occupancy rights were given to the appellant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the respondent was dispossessed. The tribunal order was set aside by the High Court because of which they have reconsidered the fact and in the second round, the tribunal asked the parties to the suit to file an appeal in civil court.
- The trial court rejected the appellant’s defense by disbelieving the agreement to sell. There were several reasons because of which the appellant’s defense were rejected like the details of the suit land were not mentioned, the details of payment of interest were also not mentioned, also the position of appellant was not mentioned.
- According to the facts and the documents, the trial court observed the respondent as the owners and the appellants as the tenant of the respondent.The trial court stated that the document Ex. D-3 which was allegedly executed on the same day as the registered sale deed were not same.
- The first appellate court stated that the trial court is in fault for not believing the Ex. D-3 document and the appellate court held it as a genuine document. The substantial question which was made by the High Court was in relation to the decision of the first appellate court for stating EX. D-3 as a genuine document.
- The judgement of the trial court was supported by the High Court but High Court found fault in first appellate court’s judgement.
- The appellants claimed in the second appeal that the High Court cannot interfere with what is termed as findings of the facts. Also, the examination of EX. D-3 cannot be termed as substantial question of law. The Supreme Court found no merits in the appeal, and dismissed it.
CONCLUSION
Under the Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court has the power to raise substantial question of law. The High Court cannot interfere in the findings of the lower court and the concurrent facts but this is subject to two important caveats. First, when it lies on the face of logic given in facts and records. Second, the findings of the fact may call for examination and when the interference is justified.
Section 103 of Civil Procedure Code states that if there is enough evidence, and sufficient records, the High Court shall determine an issue for the disposal of the appeal in case where the lower courts failed to determine such issue or it is wrongfully determined.
The Supreme Court held that the interference of the High Court in the findings of the first appellate court is justified.
The first appellate court overlooked the important evidence and appreciation of the record in its true perspective.
Because of the fault in part of the first appellate court, the parties would have to remain bound by the documents which were wrongly interpreted and injustice would have been done. Such powers exercised by the High Court cannot be doubted.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
