U. MANJUNATH RAOversusU. CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.

                            [2017] 7 S.C.R. 608



A                         U. MANJUNATH RAO
                                     v.
                     U. CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.
                       (Civil Appeal No.9951 of2017)
B                            AUGUST04,2017
           [DIPAK MISRA AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.f
         Judgment - Unreasoned Judgment - Trial court directed
  rectification of the error in the partition deed - High Court copiously
c quoted from the judgment of the trial court and held that there were
  no infirmities in the findings recorded by the trial court and
  dismissed the appeal without any reasons to support the judgment
  in appeal - Held: High Court has neither analysed the evidence
  brought on record nor has answered the issues raised in law -
  Reproduction of few passages from the trial court and ultimately
D referring to certain exhibited documents in a cryptic manner, will
  not convert an unreasoned judgment to a reasoned one - There has
  been no analysis of facts or law - Analysis and reasons are to be
  manifest, when that is not done, the judgment of High Court becomes
  indefensible - Further, judgment of appellate Court must, reflect its
  conscious application of mind and record findings supported by
E
  reasons, on all the issues arising along with contentions put forth,
  and passed by the parties for decision of appellate court.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1. On perusal of impugned judgment, it is clearly
F demonstrable that the High Court bas neither analysed the
  evidence brought on record nor bas it answe~ed 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, will not convert an unreasoned
G judgment to a reasoned one. In fact, the 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 bas to be proper
  analysis of the same. That apart, there are other issues they
H
                                  608
    U. MANJUNATH RAO v. U.CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.                             609


 deserved to be dealt with. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is           A
 that the judgment passed by the High Court is not a reasoned
 one. [Para 6] (612-B-D]

        2. 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         B
 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. [Para 7] [612-E]

         3. On a perusal of the Or.XL!, r.31 Rule of CPC, it is quite      C
· clear that the judgment of the appellate court has to state the
  reasons for the decision. In the case at hand, the 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             D
  keep in view the language employed in Order XLI Rule 31 CPC
  and the view expressed in Santosh Hazari case. Analysis and
  reason are to be manifest. When that is not done, needless to
  say, the judgment of the High Court becomes indefensible. [Paras
  12, 14] [615-D; 616-E]                                                   E

       Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by
       LRs. (2001) 3 sec 179 : 120011 1 SCR 948 - relied
       on.

       State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (dead) through                 F
       his LRs. (2000) 5 SCC 652 : (2000] 3 SCR 958; Sarju
       Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain
       Singh AIR 1951 SC 120: [1950] SCR 781; Madhukar
       and others v. Sangram and others (2001)-4 SCC 756:
       [2001) 3 SCR 138; H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith                     G
       (dead) by LRs. (2005) 10 SCC 243; State Bank ofJndia
       and another v. Emmson International Limited and
       another (2001) 12 SCC 174; Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao
       and another AIR 1974 SC 2044 - referred to.

                                                                           H
610            SUPREME COURT REPORTS.                           [2017] 7 S.C.R.



A                              Case Law Reference
      [2000] 3 SCR 95S                  referred to                Para7
      [2001] 1 SCR 94S                  relied on                  Paras
      [1950] SCR 7Sl                    referred to                Paras
 B    [2001] 3 SCR 13S                  referred to                Para 9
      (2005) 10 sec 243                 referred to                Para 10
      (2001) 12 sec 174                  referred to               Para 11
      AIR 1974 SC 2044                   referred to               Para 13
 c         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.9951
      of2017.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2014 of the High Court
      of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No. 1626 of 20 l 0.
 D          R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, Rajeev
      Singh,Advs. for the Appellant.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal, by special
      leave, is to the legal acceptability of the judgment and decree dated
 E    06.06.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in
      Regular First Appeal No. 1626 of20 IO whereby the learned single Judge
      has declined to interfere in the appeal preferred by the first defendant
      questioning the defensibility of the judgment and decree dated 21. 06.20 IO
      passed by the learned XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall,
 F    Bangalore in O.S. No. 16950 of2004.
             2. The narration of facts as is evincible from the impugned judgment
      are that the first defendant wa~ agi,:rrieved as he was directed by the trial
      Court to execute a rectification deed in respect of property description
      No. 2 in B-schedule in the partitiun deed dated 01.04.1981 which was
 G    registered on 28.07.1981 and brought on record as Ex.P-1 and further
      granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
      with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the property in question.
      It was contended before the High Court that the trial Court had erred in
      law in decreeing the suit as the registered deed of partition had not been
      proved in accordance with law and further the schedule property formed
 H
    U. MANJUNATH RAO v. U.CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.                                    611
                  [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

 part of the joint family property. That apart, it was urged that the said        A
 property was purchased by the defendant No. l from his own sources
 and his name had been recorded in the record of rights and there was no
 material on record to come to a conclusion that there existed a joint
 family which possessed sufficient nucleus to purchase the schedule
 property. A ground was taken that the partition deed had not seen the            B
 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.
          3. The High Court, as the impugned judgment reveals, noted some
  of the contentions and posed the question whether the trial Court was
  justified in directing the defendants to execute a rectification deed to        c
  correct the error in stating the site number in the partition deed dated
  01.04.1981 marked in evidence as Ex.P-1. It took note of the fact that in
. the said partition deed site No. 25, which was allotted to the plaintiff,
  was erroneously described as site No. 35 and hence, relief of the
  rectification of the error in the deed had been granted by the trial Court.     D
  Thereafter the learned single Judge, as is vivid, copiously quoted from
  the judgment of the trial Court and held that he did not find any infirmities
  in the findings recorded by the trial Court and certain documents brought
  on record showed that the plaintiff was in possession of the site No. 25.
  On the aforesaid basis, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred
  by the defendant No. l.                                                         E
       4. Pespite service of notice, there has been no appearance on
 behalf of the respondents.
         5. We have heard Mr. R.S. Hegde, learned counsel for the
  appellant. Criticising the judgment, he has submitted that the High Court       F
  has dismissed the first appeal without appreciating the oral and
  documentary evidence brought on record and further not adverting to
  the assailment by the appellant therein as regards the findings recorded
· by the trial Court. It is canvassed by him that when the plaintiff had not
  adduced any evidence to prove the existence of the joint family, the
  question of placing reliance on the deed of partition presuming that the        G
  property in dispute was a joint family property and, therefore, the partition
  deed required to be rectified as an error has been crept in, is absolutely
  fallacious. Learned counsel would submit that quoting from the trial Court
  judgment and confirming the same in a cryptic manner is not a lawful
                                                                                  H
612              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 7 S.C.R.



A     delineation of the first appeal preferred under Section 96 of the Code of
      Civil Procedure (CPC) and, therefore, the impugned judgment can be
      stamped as an unreasoned one and should be set aside with a direction
      to the High Court to dispose of the appeal on appreciation of facts and
      the law in correct perspective.
 B           6. To appreciate the submissions of Mr. Hegde, we have perused
      the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. 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,
 C    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
 D    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.
              7. It is well settled in Jaw that the reason is the life of Jaw. It is
 E    that filament that injects soul to the judi,>ment. 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. While dealing with the first appeal preferred under Section
      96 CPC, the Court in State of Rajasthan v. Hmphoo/ Singh (dead)
 F    tliro11gli his LRs 1 took note of the exception to the judgment passed by
      the· first appellate court by observing that there was no due or proper
      application of mind or any critical analysis or objective consideration of
      the matter, despite the same being the first appellate court.

 G          8. A three-Judge Bench in Santosh Hazari v. P11r11sliottam
      Tiwari (deceased) by LRs2, while discussing about power of the first
      appellate court, has opined that it is the final court of facts and, therefore,
      pure findings of fact remain immune from challenge before the High
      1   (2000) s sec 652
      2
          (2000 3 sec 179
 H
    U. MANJUNATH RAO v. U.CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.                                  613
                  [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

Court in second appeal. It is necessary to note that the Court had also         A
held thus:

       ''. .. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the
       findings of the trial court. 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. The judgment 8
       of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious
       application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on
       all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and
       pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. The
       task of an appellate court affirming the findings of the trial court c
       is an easier one. The appellate court agreeing with the view of
       the trial court need not restate the effect of the evidence or reiterate
       the reasons given by the trial court; expression of general
       agreement with reasons given by the court, decision of which is
       under appeal, would ordinarily suffice (See Girijanandini Devi
       v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary3). We would, however, like to D
       sound a note of caution. Expression of general agreement with
       the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be
       a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate court for shirking
       the duty cast on it. ... "
                                                                                E
                                                     [Emphasis supplied]

          The aforesaid passage has to be appositely understood. While
  reversing the finding and conclusions of the trial Court, the duty of the
  first appellate court is different than while affirming a judgment. Be it
  stated, the Court has also held that it is a final court oflaw in the sense   F
  that its decision on a question of law even if erroneous may not be
  vulnerable before the High Court in second appeal because the
  jurisdiction of the High Court has now ceased to be available to correct
  the errors of law or the erroneous findings of the first appellate court
  even on questions of law unless such question of law is a substantial         G
  one. In the said case, the Court, after referring to the decision in Sarju
· Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narai11 Si11gh4, has
  further opined that:

 'AIR 1967 SC 1124
 'AIR 1951SC120                                                                 H
614             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 7 S..C.R.


A           "     while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must
            come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial
            court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different
            finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that
            the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it.
            We need only remind the first appellate courts of the additional
B
            obligation cast on them by the scheme of the present Section 100
            substituted in the Code. . .. "
            The purpose of referring to the said decision is to highlight the
      responsibility cast on the first appellate court or a court hearing the first
 C    appeal.
          9. In Madhukar and others v. Sangram and otliers5, the Court
   noticed that the High Court has framed two questions and thereafter
   had set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and allowed the
   first appeal. Discussing about the duty of the first appellate court, the
   Colllj had referred to the decision in Santosh Hazari (supra) and
 D reiterated the principles stated therein.
            I 0. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (dead) by LRs6 , the two-
      Judge Bench ruled:
             "The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In
 E           the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions
             of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to
             address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons.
             Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded
             any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate
             court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues
 F           and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding
             regarding title. The order of the High Court is cryptic and the
             same is without assigning any reason."
             The said principle has been reiterated in State Bank of India
   and another v. Emmsons International Limited and another7 • Thus,
 G in the first appeal the parties have right to be heard both on the questions
   of facts as well as on_law and the first appellate court is required to
   address itself to all the aspects and decide the case by ascribing reasons.

      'c2001) 4 sec 756
      • c2005) 1o sec 243
 H    7
        (2011)12SCC174
    U. MANJUNATH RAO v. U.CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.                                    615
                  [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

      11. In this context, we may usefully refer to Order XLI Rule 31             A
 CPC which reads as follows:
        "Order XLI. Appeals from Original Decrees
        31. Contents, date and signature of judgment.- The judgment
        of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state-
                                                                                  B
        (a) the points for determination;
        (b) the decision thereon;
        (c) the reasons for the decision; and
        (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the
        relief to which the appellant is entitled,
                                                                                  c
        and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by
        the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein."
         12. On a perusal of the said Rule, it is quite clear that the judgment
  of the appellate court has to state the reasons for the decision. It is         D
  necessary to make it clear that the approach of the first appellate court
  while affirming the judgment of the trial Court and reversing the same is
  founded on different parameters as per the judgments of this Court. In
  Girijanandini Devi (supra), the Court ruled that while agreeing with
· the view of the trial court on the evidence, it is not necessary to restate
                                                                                  E
  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. The
  same has been accepted by another three-Judge Bench in Smrtosh
  Hazari (supra). However, while stating the law, the Court has opined
  that expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the          F
  judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage to be adopted
  by the appellate court for shirking the duty cast on it. We are disposed to
  think, the expression of the said opinion has to be understood in proper
  perspective. By no stretch of imagination it can be stated that the first
  appellate court can quote passages from the trial court judgment and            G
  thereafter pen few lines and express the view that there is no reason to
  differ with the trial Court judgment. That is not the statement of law
  expressed by the Court. The statement of law made in Santosh H azari
   (supra) has to be borne in mind.

                                                                                  H
616            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017) 7 S.C.R.



A           13. In this regard, a three-Judge Bench decision in Asha Devi v.
    D11khi Sao and another" is worthy of noticing, although the context
    was different. In the said case, the question arose with regard to power
    of the Division Bench hearing a Letters Patent appeal from the judgment
    of the single Judge in a first appeal. The Court held that the Letters
    Patent appeal lies both on questions of fact and law. The purpose of
B · referring to the said decision is only to show that when the Letters Patent
    appeal did lie, it was not restricted to the questions of law. The appellant
    could raise issues pertaining to facts and appreciation of evidence. This
    is indicative of the fact that the first appellate court has a defined role
    and its judgment should show application of mind and reflect the reasons
C on the basis of which it agrees with the trial Court. There has to be an
    "expression of opinion" in the proper sense of the said phrase. It cannot
    be said that mere concurrence meets the requirement of law. Needless
    to say, it is one thing to state that the appeal is without any substance and
    it is another thing to elucidate, analyse and arrive at the conclusion that
D the appeal is devoid of merit.
           14. In the case at hand, as we have noted earlier, 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
 E. view the language employed in Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and the view
    expressed in Santosh Hazari (supra). Analysis and reason are to be
    manifest. When that is not done, needless to say, the judgment of the
    High Court becomes indefensible.
             15. In view of the aforesaid premises, we allow the appeal, set
 F    aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court and
      remit the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The High
      Court is requested to dispose of the appeal within six months. There
      shall be no order as to costs.


      Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.




      'AIR 1974 SC 2048