2017 (8) TMI 1734 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment for lack of proper analysis in property partition deed dispute

The SC set aside the HC judgment granting permanent injunction in a property dispute involving a partition deed. The HC failed to analyze evidence or ... Legal acceptability of the judgment and decree - grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the property in question - ground was taken that the partition deed had not seen the light of the day for more than 22 years and when its genuineness was questioned on the basis of materials brought on record, the said issue had not been appositely addressed - HELD THAT:- The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is perused. It is clearly demonstrable that the High Court has neither analysed the evidence brought on record nor has it answered the issues raised in law. Stating the facts and thereafter reproducing few passages from the trial Court and ultimately referring to certain exhibited documents in a cryptic manner, we are disposed to think, will not convert an unreasoned judgment to a reasoned one. In fact, as we notice, the learned Judge has posed the question about the defensibility of the ultimate direction by the trial Court and thereafter proceeded to quote paragraphs from the trial Court judgment. Posing a question which is relevant for adjudication of the appeal is not enough. There has to have been proper analysis of the same. That apart, there are other issues they deserved to be dealt with. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the judgment passed by the High Court is not a reasoned one. It is well settled in law that the reason is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the judgment. Absence of analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but mummifies the core spirit of the judgment. A Judge has to constantly remind himself that absence of reason in the process of adjudication makes the ultimate decision pregnable. In Girijanandini Devi [1966 (8) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT], the Court ruled that while agreeing with the view of the trial court on the evidence, it is not necessary to restate the effect of the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial court. Expression of general agreement with reasons given in the trial court judgment which is under appeal should ordinarily suffice. In the case at hand, the learned Judge has really not ascribed any reason. There has been no analysis of facts or law. There is no discussion with regard to the points urged. While agreeing with the general approval of reasons to support the conclusions of the judgment in appeal, the High Court has to keep in view the language employed in Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and the view expressed in Santosh Hazari [2001 (2) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT]. Analysis and reason are to be manifest. When that is not done, needless to say, the judgment of the High Court becomes indefensible. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside - matter remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legal acceptability of the High Court's judgment and decree.2. Execution of a rectification deed.3. Proof of the registered deed of partition.4. Existence of a joint family and its nucleus.5. Analysis and reasoning by the High Court in its judgment.6. Responsibilities of the first appellate court under Section 96 of the CPC.Detailed Analysis:1. Legal Acceptability of the High Court's Judgment and Decree:The Supreme Court examined the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, which declined to interfere with the trial court's decision. The High Court had dismissed an appeal by the first defendant challenging the trial court's judgment and decree dated 21.06.2010. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment lacked proper analysis and reasoning, rendering it indefensible.2. Execution of a Rectification Deed:The trial court had directed the first defendant to execute a rectification deed to correct an error in the property description in the partition deed dated 01.04.1981. The High Court upheld this direction, noting that site No. 25 was erroneously described as site No. 35 in the partition deed. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately address the issues raised regarding this rectification.3. Proof of the Registered Deed of Partition:The appellant contended that the registered deed of partition was not proved in accordance with the law and that the schedule property was part of the joint family property. The High Court, however, did not provide a detailed analysis of these contentions. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for the High Court to analyze the evidence and provide reasons for its decision.4. Existence of a Joint Family and Its Nucleus:The appellant argued that the property in question was purchased by the first defendant from his own sources and that there was no evidence of a joint family possessing sufficient nucleus to purchase the property. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to address this issue adequately, thereby not fulfilling its duty to provide a reasoned judgment.5. Analysis and Reasoning by the High Court in Its Judgment:The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for merely quoting from the trial court's judgment and not providing its own analysis or reasons. The High Court's judgment was deemed unreasoned and lacking in proper adjudication of the appeal. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of analysis and reasoning in judicial decisions, stating that the absence of these elements evinces non-application of mind and undermines the core spirit of the judgment.6. Responsibilities of the First Appellate Court under Section 96 of the CPC:The Supreme Court reiterated that the first appellate court has a significant role in re-evaluating both facts and law. It must provide a reasoned judgment that reflects its conscious application of mind. The Court referred to several precedents, including *Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari* and *State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh*, to underscore the appellate court's duty to address all issues and provide reasons for its decisions. The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed in this duty, as its judgment lacked detailed analysis and reasoning.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and decree, and remitted the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. The High Court was requested to dispose of the appeal within six months, emphasizing the need for a reasoned judgment that addresses all issues raised.