Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SRI DOKKA SAMUEL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. JACOB LAZARUS CHELLY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the learned single judge, made on February 29,1996 in
R.S.A. No. 90/1983 by the Karnataka High Court. The
respondents had filled a suit in the trial Court for
declaration that he had purchased two plots bearing Nos. 307
and 308 admeasuring 40’x31’ in Hubli town and for recovery
of possession on the plea that the appellant has no manner
of right whatsoever to interfere with his possession. The
trial Court dismissed the suit, On appeal, it was decreed.
In the second appeal, the learned judge confirmed the same.
But in the Review application, the single judge reheard the
matter and reversed the decree of the appellate court and
confirmed that of the trial Court. Thus, this appeal by
special leave.
It is seen that by an order passed by court on 24th
November, 1995, liberty was given to the appellant, in the
event of the High Court was justified in reviewing the
earlier order and reversing the find recorded by the
appellate Court ? It is not in dispute that the sale deed is
for a small sum of Rs. 300/- and odd and that the property
sold commands good market value. The questions arises:
whether the document was a sale deed or is only a document
for collateral purpose? The respondent himself in an earlier
suit had pleaded that it was an agreement of sale, In view
of such an admission, the High Court has wrongly reversed
the decree of the appellate court holding the transaction to
be a real sale, In the second appeal, the High Court
confirmed, in the first instance, the decree of the
appellate Court. Subsequently, the High Court has reviewed
the judgment and reconsidered the matter holding that
relevant precedents were not cited. Since this court had
given liberty to raise the questions of reviewability of the
judgment of the High court, the question arises whether the
High Court could not have embarked upon appreciation of
evidence and considered whether there was an error apparent
on the face on record? It was contended before the learned
single Judge that various decisions were not cited; proper
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
consideration was paid; in fact the sale deed was acted for
valid consideration. The omission to cite an authority of
law is not a ground for reviewing the prier judgment saying
that there is an error apparent on the face of the record,
since the counsel has committed an error in not bringing to
the notice of the Court the relevant precedents. In fact,
since the respondent had claimed that it is not a sale deed
but was executed for collateral purpose, it was for the
respondent to establish that the sale was for real
consideration and he had a valid sale deed duly executed by
the appellant. The High Court wrongly placed Burden on the
appellant and reviewed the order and heard the matter on
merits. The entire approach of the learned single judge is
not correct in law.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order
of the High Court stands set aside and decree of the
appellate Court, as confirmed by the High Court in the first
instance, is upheld. In other words, the suit stands
decreed. No costs.