A.M. Sangappa @ Sangappa v. Sangondeppa & Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: P. Sathasivam, CJI
Ranjana Prakash Desai
Ranjan Gogoi
Judgment Date: 2013-11-19
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is disposed of. The High Court’s judgment is set aside and the Regular First Appeal is remanded for fresh disposal. The High Court is directed to restore RFA No. 238 of 2004 (corrected as RFA Nos. 622-623 of 2007) and to strive for early disposal, ideally within six months from receipt of the order.
Final Disposition: Remanded to High Court for fresh disposal; appeal disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A.M. Sangappa @ Sangappa

Respondents

Sangondeppa & Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Respondents

• Anand Sanjay M. Nuli
• Lave Kumar Sharma
• V.N. Raghupathy

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal challenges a Karnataka High Court decision in Regular First Appeal No. 238 of 2004 arising from a dispute over civil rights. The Supreme Court emphasizes the correct procedure for disposing of a Regular First Appeal under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC: the appellate court must frame points for determination, decide them, provide reasons, and, if the decree is reversed or varied, indicate the relief to which the appellant is entitled. It reiterates that a Regular First Appeal is a valuable right and, unless restricted by law, the whole case remains open for rehearing on questions of fact and law. In the instant case, the High Court’s disposal failed to notice relevant aspects and did not exhibit the level of mindful consideration expected from a first appellate court. Consequently, the Court sets aside the High Court judgment and remands the Regular First Appeal for fresh disposal. It directs the High Court to restore RFA No. 238 of 2004 (corrected as RFA Nos. 622-623 of 2007) and to endeavour for early disposal, preferably within six months. The Court also cites the principle from B. V. Nagesh and Another v. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy to stress that the whole record must be examined and reasons given on all issues raised by both parties. The ultimate directive is for the appellate process to proceed with due diligence, culminating in disposal of the appeal."

Provisions of Law Cited

Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, 1908 (Code of Civil Procedure)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Regular first appeal must frame points for determination, decide them, provide reasons, and specify relief if reversed/varied (Order 41 Rule 31 CPC).
A regular first appeal is a valuable right and the whole case is open for rehearing on questions of fact and law unless restricted by law.
Judgment of the appellate court must reflect conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all issues raised.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that, as a Regular First Appeal, the High Court ought to have reappraised the on-record evidence and the trial court’s findings. The impugned judgment is argued to be unsustainable for failure to appreciate the evidence and to accept the trial court’s findings, thereby not satisfying the requirement of a first appellate scrutiny.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel supported the impugned decision of the High Court, aligning with the view that the High Court properly appraised the evidence and concluded in favor of the judgment under appeal.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B. V. Nagesh and Another v. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy	2010 (11) SCR 530	Positive	The judgment reiterates and relies on principles from this case regarding proper disposal of Regular First Appeals under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, indicating supportive authority for the approach adopted.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2013] 12 S.C.R. 397 ## A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPA A _v._ SANGONDEPPA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 10490 of 2013) NOVEMBER 19, 2013 B **[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]** _CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908:_ c - - - _0.41, r.31 First appeal Disposal of Held: A regular first appeal is to be disposed of, particularly, in the light of_ 0. _41 r.31_ - _It mandates that appellate court has to frame points for determination, decision thereon, reasons for the decision and where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied,_ D -- _the relief to which appellant is entitled First appeal is_ a _valuable right and unless restricted by law, the whole case is open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law_ -- _Accordingly, judgment of appellate court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported_ E _by reasons, on all issues arising along with contentions put forth by both sides_ -- _In the instant case, relevant aspects have_ -- _not been noticed and adverted to by High Court Appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner which falls short of considerations expected from the court of first appeal_ -- **F** _Judgment of High Court is set aside and regular first appeal is remanded to it for disposal afresh._ **F** _B. V. Nagesh and Another vs. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy_ **2010 (11) SCR 784 = (2010) 13 sec 530 - relied on.** **Case Law Reference: 2010 (11) SCR 784 relied on** **para 7** G **H** 397 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 12 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10490 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RF.A. No. 238 of B 2004. Sabha for the Appellant. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Lave Kumar Sharma, V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents. c The folowing order of the Court was delivered by ## **ORDER** 1. Leave granted. ## D 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2006 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 238 of 2004. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through E 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 F in the absence of appreciation of evidence and acceptability of the findings recorded by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned decision of the High Court. G 5. 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. 6. In a series of decisions, this Court has h!Jhlighted how H a regular first appeal is to be disposed of, particularly, in the ## A.M. SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPA _v._ SANGONDEPPA 399 &ANR. light of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. It mandates that the appellate 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. 7. 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 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. A B C D 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. E . F G 11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ## R.P. Appeal disposed of. H