Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Gowrammanni & Ors vs V.V. Patil (D) By Lrs. & Ors

Supreme Court19 September 2008G.S. Singhvi · B.N. Agrawal

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where evidence, including evidence from a Court Commissioner who was examined and cross-examined, has been adduced before the Trial Court on a question of fact (here, the identity of disputed land), the High Court should decide a First Appeal on the merits of that evidence rather than remand the matter to the Trial Court for the parties to adduce further evidence on the same issue.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5748 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5626 of 2005)

Gowrammanni and Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

V.V. Patil (D) by L.Rs. and Ors. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants. In spite of service of notice, the respondents have not entered appearance to contest the prayer made in this appeal.

By the impugned order passed in a First Appeal against the decree passed by the Trial Court, the High Court has remanded the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to give opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence on the question of identity of disputed land.

From a bare perusal of the judgement of the Trial Court, it would appear that, on the question of identity of disputed land, the parties have adduced evidence, a Court Commissioner was appointed, who submitted a report, and he was examined as a witness and duly cross-examined and thereupon the suit was disposed of.

...2/-

-2- In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the Trial Court but should have decided the appeal on merits after taking into consideration the evidence adduced before the Trial Court. In view of these facts, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the High Court to dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

No costs.

......................J. [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J. [G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, September 19, 2008.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free