Rio Ksémbinakoppalu,
Rib Kfimbinakoppalu,
IN THE HIGH comm' ore' KARKATAKA AT nmaamm
DATED 1':-as THE 41% 11.9.? or !)ECEMBER_. ~
BEFORE H %
TI-IE HOWELE MKJUETICE
R..B.A. xo.1m7%5 A. A
smwsan: V»
Chikkalakkaiah,
S/0 Sambaiah,
Aged about '35 years,
R,/o Kombinakoppalu,
Dcvalapura Hobirgf . _ -
uevalapura
' ._ .
Mandya. .. APPELLANT
(By 3:113; A.-'sixggy
AND:
S4/gar} '
ifiged Eabcazt S8
' E;}e1raZ:a;.pz~1mA§E*Isr31:3}i,
{)e'siai%ai'§;z;r;:ff'::vst,
" Taiuk,
fizantiga Q53-i;I'$cf;.
.. " Sip Euadanfah,
'waged ahaiai: 86 yaears,
F flrevaiapura Eisebli,
" Bevaiapura ?st.,,
Nagamangaia Taluk,
Ma-rxdya II}ist':ri*ira
Detral:}.pu1uét_»Pos'i:,» ' * *
Nagamér:§a1s;;TaIuk,%%L % '
Psg'ia11ciy:3..i1)istzil;t ..--1S'z_1' 432. 66 nmspoxpmnrs
(By far R-- 1
Sri fi.V.Rama11, Adv. far 3 (a) to ((1))
is filed umier Sccfion 100 CFC against the
Decme dated 30.10.1200? passed in
R;A.:szcs.159;'%2i1{35 on than file of the Civil Judge (Sr.D1::.) 3:,
_ _ JMI?5{3., a11awi11g the appeal fikzd against the
VJ1i1€I7g2}1$1f3.i: and Decree dated 32.10.2096 passerzi in
¥]0¢s'.r§'¢.135/2301 01:}, the file at the Civil Juégc (J1:{311.) 55
This appeal coming on for admisgion this day, the Court
A. deiivered the foI}owing:~»
6
and hence the impugned jzicigment/decree calls for
ifiterference ané the matter may have tr} be re1egat§2:i,:.:bag::k to
the Appellate Court far GOi1Si.d6§'a'{iGI1 of
accardance with iaw.
6. Smtfiumangaia Swamy 14.
advocates for the respondents, o:; tfia.e other. iiiaés
submissions in Suppflfi of t}1r;.é”V»f1I1di1’14gs_ “arid . £;0nc1usioI1s
recorded by the learnefi andvéciitezzded that
in View of the material}. 5;i.?§’?»1§§I:-..bie on record,
especially thc;.v’:,*3§g;f§3ast};a judgment; under
appealgs – ‘
‘2’, In i?iL’.w” “E3131 cententions, the substantial
‘~ _ qué:_é’$iQ_x; cf iaw that-requires considerafion is:
_ Ffrst Appeilate Court has decided the
. ‘- –A3:’1’f§€€1§i?1 afirdarbm with law?”
8’ ‘ Apex Caufi: in the case of Saatash Hazari Vs.
A ” ‘Mi’7:’x._shotta.m Tiwari {Dead} by Lu. mmrted in Am 2001
965, the facts cf the case were that, the
‘p}ai11t;ifi’/appeilant fieci 9. suit for deciaratien of title and
recovery of yassession and issuance of permanent
\/
7
preventive injunction resfiaimng the defendant fiom
i;1terfeI*ing with the possessian 0f the plaintiff over th: e”»$11it
property. Defendant contested the suit. On
of oral and d<}CU_'ifier1ta1'y evidence adduced .,
the suit was decreed. Defeiidant
was allowed. and thereby the suii- was cijirkeciifétix {{1}}.
ciismissed. A second appea1–é1iszfi;issed in
iimine and the matter ._b\éiE?~.1fe th§§"AV;i}ex Court,
wherein it was held as fc~11m=?$_; LT AA 9
'The first édgfié-'elirfie = .1.3.'_'_£,.V:Ar:1 very cryptic
' on question of
,g5£3ssessi£§?i'.{L12}fit' as alleged by the
plaira_t:_€f'f, question of adverse
_posse§Sic;:?1Va$; pzedaed by the defendant. me
'aaggféfigtte jurisdiction is reverse or affirm
% jimfiings cf the ma: Court. First appeaz is a
of the parties and unéess restricted
'A the wfwie case is therein apart for
_ " mm on questiens offact and Eaw, The
* s '_ of the appellate Com': must, therefare,
* féeflmr its wnsdmm appfication of mind, and
record findings supported by rerasarw, em all the
issues arising aiong with the contentiarzs pat forth,
and pressed by the: parties for decision of the
appeliate Court. The task of mafizppeliate Court
/1
»
8
affirming the firzding3 of the trial Court is an easier
one. The appellate Court agreeing with the view of
the trial Court need not restate the ejfect of thg
eviderm or reiterate the reasons given by
court; expression of general agreeme:_:*;ti”” 5 _;.
reasons given by the Court, decisisn gf i
under app-eai, would ordiitar’i{y
Girtjanandini Devi :2. Bijendriz. Nctmin c*hou.};m:;+g;,.¢#’it~
AIR 1967 SC 1124). we.4;uou1az__howe:.re§;Iifge
sound :2 note of cczutionfv.
agreement with “zf¢c>:3rci’£?:d–.. in} the
judgment under device or
cams-uflage__adopted,:’by Court for
shirking ;ti”;£3 k1utgi,{_ .. writing a
jt;§dg{n§3}iti’iX;3iV_ the appeliate Caurt must
refnair: CGfl.$€3§4§fL£,’§ twa principles. Firstiy, the
findirxzgsi eff i s.E;«t>éed on conflieting evidence
.. «fifrzlfrived at vvthgvtriczl Court must weigh with the
in moreso when the findings are
V ‘ it pram! evidence recfirded by the same
Judge who authors the judgment. This
daes not mean that when an appeal ties
AA onjiszcts, the appeiiate Court is not competent ta
V’ V. ‘”‘g**ez:e:’se a finding of fact arrived at by the trial
Judge. As a matter cf law if the appraisal of the
etzidencse by the triai Cami sufiem frsm a material
irregularity 91* is based an inadmissibie evidence
02* an cenjectures and surmises; the afiipeilzzte
K
,,«/7.
Cam’: is emitted to interfere with the fin,d€ng offact
(See Madhusudcm Das V. Smt.Narc2yan;i Bat”,
1933 so 114;. The rule is -W and it is
more than {,2 rule of practice ~ that .
conflict cf oral evidence of the
matter in issue and the d63(..’i§iOfi};li1’3g€;S _i;;;ir_,rn:
credibifity of witnesses, thei2’ui§fes:S t?2g?’e_.is VT
special feature about .i}aa_.e:zi§ic32§tie3 Qf
witness which has the triai Jm~:ge*s; notice
or there is a sz§;zj’igient&..i9ai{ifi;::Qé””9f inzgifoiaafifiity to
dispzaoe his opirii’e::é;:zs”-3;:xtgredibility lies,
the appeilcgte nbt. with the
offact (See
‘V U. Jwalesfuvazi
.§v{¢;§fAi:ain=. Si:1gh,_’ AIR 1951 Sc :20).
ficcéfidly; a finding of fact the
apfié£I§:é.te come izzto dose quarters with
V, reaébning afisigned by the trial Court and therzé
13:3 own reasens for arriving at a different
,£zn§1ik:;’gr.. ‘ :r’nis would satisy the Court hearing :2
fu+z§égr.’Tappeaz that the first appeiiate Court had
ciigcfcéirged the duty expected sf it. We need anly
.re~rhind the first appeilate Courts of the additionai
_ H obligatian mst on them by the scheme of the
present Section 100 substituted in the Code. The
first appellate Court wntirmes, as before, to be :1
firzai Court of facts; pure findings of fact remain
immune: frezam chailenge be-fare the High Cam’: fr:
R
/7?
II
evidence :10: applicatiefi of law by the learned Appellate
Judge. In the circumstances, aubstantrial questien cf law is
answered in the afiirmative and it is held that the impugned
judgment suflers from non~app1icafie-11 cf mind the
facts. and the law, by the learned Appellate «l _~_. A’
In the result, the second hapfgéal Tllé’ .
firldgment ¥.}I1d€I’ Challenge is séit a$’id%:.
remittad back to the Appeiidte.. Vde’ci§d{2i._’fJ1¢V ”
afresh, both on facts and in the ratio
laid clown by the A];)V(ft}{.zTi.:Q1§lIft iiscision referred to
suprafl Al_},}>9t1_: the 13ar’c:ies are left epen for
considefiafiién Court. Since the appeal is
of thc-vyear’4.V2{)V(u}6,”‘ ef the Case Flow Management
. l by tlifliélllélotirt, in order to enable the Appellate
the hearing 0f the appeal, the parties are
difecteclv’ ‘tz)_v’alppea3″ before the First Appeiiaiae Ctmrt 011
10 and recgive further oréers figm the Iorwar
A C1<:a111"t,. It is made clear that, any observatians
.,p:§.ade in this judgment, being only limited for the purpose sf
V' alecision an the szibstantial question of law under
conaidarafian, shall not be treated as an expression sf
Ex
1;:
12
opinion on the merits of the matter, which is new 1féqui;red
to be decided by the Appeilatse Ccmrt.
3%UD’ E*
FKS