Karnataka HC Sends Alleged Forged Land Sale Deed Dispute Back For Fresh Appeal, Finding Evidence Was Not Properly Reassessed

The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a registered sale deed concerning his land was forged, null and void, for declaration of title and possession, and for permanent injunction.

He denied executing the sale deed and relied, among other evidence, on a fingerprint expert’s opinion that the disputed and admitted thumb impressions did not match.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, finding the plaintiff to be the owner in possession and the sale deed forged. On the defendants’ appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff’s legal representatives appealed to the High Court, contending that the First Appellate Court had not properly considered the evidence or complied with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

Order XLI Rule 31 CPC requires an appellate judgment to state the points for determination, the decision on each point, the reasons for that decision, and the relief granted where the decree is reversed or varied.

A first appellate court, as the final court of fact, must independently assess the evidence, address the relevant points and give reasoned findings; general expressions of concurrence or conclusions unsupported by adequate reasoning do not satisfy that duty (H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs v. A. Ramalingam, 2011 (4) SCC 240; Bangarappa v. Rudrappa and Another, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 1185).

Section 96 CPC permits an appeal on questions of fact and law; the first appellate court is the final court of fact (Lakshmi v. Gopi and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1338).

The High Court found that the First Appellate Court had framed general points rather than properly identifying the relevant matters for determination, and had discussed the fingerprint expert’s evidence without adequately reassessing the entire record, including the other evidence and documents.

It had reversed the Trial Court’s decree without sufficient reasons. Because the First Appellate Court’s judgment did not demonstrate the independent, reasoned assessment required by Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the High Court held that the judgment could not stand.

It did not determine whether the sale deed was in fact forged or decide the merits of the parties’ claims.

It set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree, restored the first appeal to its file, and directed that court to reconsider the appeal afresh and deliver a judgment complying with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

The Court expressly left the merits and all parties’ contentions open and directed the parties to appear before the First Appellate Court on 30 November 2026.