Court: Supreme Court of India
Quorum: Hon’ble J. Rajesh Bindal, J. Vikram Nath
Date: November 06, 2023
Facts of the case
Kallu Bhai bought a property in Indore in 1913 in the name of his three-year-old nephew, Mohd. Jafar. Kallu Bhai died without any children in 1952, and his second wife died in 1970. Syed Mohd. Hasan, who had been brought to live with Kallu Bhai, was around 7-8 years old when his mother died.
Due to poor health, Mohd. Jafar sold the property to Raza Hussain in 1975. In 1977, Raza Hussain filed a suit against Syed Mohd. Hasan for possession and damages. The trial court ruled in favor of Raza Hussain in 1995, but this decision was overturned by the High Court on appeal by Syed Mohd. Hasan.
Legal issue
Did the High Court err in reversing the trial court’s judgment without thoroughly discussing all the evidence on record?
Contentions of appellants
The petitioners argued that the trial court’s judgment favoring them was well-reasoned and supported by evidence, including the validity of the sale deed from 1975. They contended that the High Court erred in reversing this judgment without adequately discussing the evidence. They emphasized that the High Court failed to recognize the sale deed and the purchase agreement, both validated by a handwriting expert. The petitioners challenged the defendant’s claim of adverse possession, noting it was not initially pleaded. They argued the defendant was a licensee and not in rightful possession of the property. They highlighted that their predecessor issued eviction notices ignored by the defendant, leading to the civil suit. They asserted that the property was always in the possession of their predecessor-in-interest, negating the defendant’s adverse possession claim. They claimed a clear error in the High Court’s judgment warranted its reversal and the restoration of the trial court’s decree in their favor.
Contentions of the respondents
The agreement to sell and sale deed were registered from Late Mohd. Jafar within 15 days when he was in poor health. Mohd. Jafar was never in possession of the disputed property. It always remained with the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-defendant, who had been living with Late Kallu Bhai. The respondent-defendant was not in possession as a licensee, but in his own right. His possession was hostile to the knowledge of the owners who had sold the property. As the original owners had lost title to the property, it could not have been passed on to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. A plea of adverse possession was raised as an additional plea in the written statement, to which no reply was given by the appellants.
Judgment and Analysis
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had reversed the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment without properly discussing the entire evidence on record, which it was duty-bound to do. The court noted that the High Court failed to consider important evidence, including the opinion of a Handwriting Expert, testimony of witnesses to the sale deed, notices issued by the appellants’ predecessor to evict the respondent-defendant. The Supreme Court emphasized that as a First Appellate Court, the High Court was required to address all issues, decide the case with reasons, and show conscious application of mind to both law and facts. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not referred to all the evidence produced by parties on various issues for re-appreciation and had recorded findings referring to only part of the evidence. Due to these shortcomings, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to give priority to this case due to its age and to decide the matter afresh, considering all documentary and oral evidence without being prejudiced by any observations made in the Supreme Court’s order. In essence, the Supreme Court’s judgment focuses on procedural issues rather than the merits of the case. It emphasizes the importance of thorough evidence examination and reasoned decision-making by appellate courts, especially when overturning lower court judgments.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s judgment without thoroughly examining all the evidence. As a result, the case was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of proper appellate review and thorough examination of evidence in legal proceedings.
Reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.
Click here to read the Judgement.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
