Supreme Court Orders Remand Due to Inadequate First Appeal Review: Nemai Chandra Dey vs. Prasanta Chandra (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 415
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

What happens when a first appellate court fails to properly review a case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue, highlighting the importance of the first appellate court’s duty to re-evaluate evidence and provide reasoned findings. This case underscores the necessity of a thorough review process in the judicial system, ensuring that decisions are not only made but are also well-considered. The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized the critical role of the first appellate court in civil cases and the consequences of failing to meet its obligations.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, Nemai Chandra Dey, and the legal representatives of the first defendant, Prasanta Chandra. The original plaintiff, the wife of the uncle of the first defendant, filed a suit in 1999 seeking the declaration of two gift deeds, dated July 29, 1990, and July 30, 1990, as void. She claimed that these documents were not executed by her and were obtained under the guise of a power of attorney, alleging that the first defendant, who was taking care of her after her husband’s death, had misled her.

The plaintiff, examined as PW1, stated that the first defendant convinced her of the need for a power of attorney, which later turned out to be gift deeds in favor of the defendant. The first defendant’s case was that the gift deeds were executed out of love and affection. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the gift deeds void, based on the premise that the plaintiff was a ‘pardahnashin’ lady, and the nature of the document was not properly explained to her.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, after examining the evidence, concluded that the gift deeds were void and liable to be canceled. The court reasoned that the plaintiff was a ‘pardahnashin’ lady, and the character of the document was not brought to her notice.

The first appellate court, however, did not properly re-appreciate the evidence. Instead, it merely stated that it had gone through the arguments of both sides and found the respondent’s arguments more acceptable, affirming the trial court’s decision without providing any detailed reasoning or analysis of the evidence.

The High Court, in second appeal, upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the first appellate court had given its approval to the trial court findings. The High Court did not find any perversity in the judgments of the lower courts.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This rule outlines the manner in which a first appellate court must consider an appeal in a civil suit. The Supreme Court emphasized that the first appellate court has a duty to re-appreciate the evidence and consider the matter unless it invokes its power under Order XLI Rule 11 of CPC.

The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier judgments, particularly in Madhukar and Others v. Sangram and Others (2001) 4 SCC 756, which reiterated the principles laid down in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam (2001) 3 SCC 179. These cases emphasize that the first appeal is a valuable right, and the appellate court must reflect a conscious application of mind, recording findings supported by reasons on all issues. The appellate court must engage with the reasoning of the trial court when reversing a finding of fact.

The Supreme Court also referred to the principles relating to a ‘pardahnashin’ lady as laid down in Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai and Others AIR 1963 1203, which requires that the person seeking to rely on a document executed by a pardahnashin lady must establish that the document was executed with full understanding of its nature and effect.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The first appellate court did not properly consider the evidence or the appellant’s arguments.
• The first appellate court failed to fulfill its duty by not re-appreciating the evidence and not providing reasons for its decision.
• The plaintiff was literate and had executed other sale deeds, therefore, she could not claim to be a pardahnashin lady who did not understand the nature of the document.
• The suit was filed due to the influence of the nephew of the plaintiff’s sister, in whose house she was staying.
• The gift deeds were validly executed and the scribe and attesting witness were examined.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The High Court correctly upheld the trial court’s decision, as the trial court’s judgment was elaborate and detailed.
• The first appellate court had concurred with the trial court’s findings.
• The plaintiff was a ‘pardahnashin’ lady and the gift deeds were obtained by misrepresentation.
• The trial court had rightly concluded that the gift deeds were void.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the first appellate court had discharged its duty as the first appellate court in the manner contemplated under law.
• Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the first appellate court had given its approval to the trial court findings.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Madhukar and Others v. Sangram and Others (2001) 4 SCC 756 – Reiterated the principles laid down in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam.
  The Supreme Court referred to this case to emphasize the importance of the first appellate court’s duty to re-appreciate the evidence and consider the arguments.
• Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam (2001) 3 SCC 179 – Established the duty of the first appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and provide reasoned findings.
  The Supreme Court relied on this case to highlight that the first appeal is a valuable right and the appellate court must reflect a conscious application of mind.
• Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai and Others AIR 1963 1203 – Principles relating to a ‘pardahnashin’ lady.
  The Supreme Court referred to this case to reiterate the principles regarding the protection of ‘pardahnashin’ ladies.

Legal Provisions:

• Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Outlines the manner in which a first appellate court must consider an appeal in a civil suit.
  The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to this rule.

[TABLE] of Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Madhukar and Others v. Sangram and Others (2001) 4 SCC 756*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of the first appellate court’s duty to re-appreciate the evidence and consider the arguments.
• Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam (2001) 3 SCC 179*: The Court relied on this case to highlight that the first appeal is a valuable right and the appellate court must reflect a conscious application of mind.
• Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai and Others AIR 1963 1203*: The Court referred to this case to reiterate the principles regarding the protection of ‘pardahnashin’ ladies.
• Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to this rule, which outlines the manner in which a first appellate court must consider an appeal in a civil suit.

The Supreme Court found that the first appellate court had failed to discharge its duties by not re-appreciating the evidence and not providing reasons for its decision. The High Court erred in considering the first appellate court’s decision as a concurrent finding. The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court had not properly considered the evidence and had not given its approval to the trial court findings.

The Court emphasized that the first appellate court must engage with the reasoning of the trial court when reversing a finding of fact. The Supreme Court noted that the first appellate court merely stated that it had gone through the arguments of both sides and found the respondent’s arguments more acceptable, without providing any detailed reasoning or analysis of the evidence.

The Court noted that, “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 Court also stated that, “the judgment 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.” Furthermore, the Court observed, “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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the first appellate court fulfills its duty to re-appreciate the evidence and provide reasoned findings. The Court emphasized that the first appeal is a valuable right and that the appellate court must reflect a conscious application of mind. The Court was also concerned that the High Court had not properly assessed the first appellate court’s decision.

The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure that the judicial process is followed correctly and that the parties have a fair opportunity to have their case heard.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• The first appellate court must re-appreciate the evidence and provide reasoned findings.
• Failure to do so can result in the case being remanded by higher courts.
• The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties.
• The High Court should not treat the first appellate court’s decision as a concurrent finding if the first appellate court has not properly considered the evidence.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of a thorough review process in the judicial system.

Directions

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the first appellate court, directing it to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date on which a copy of the judgment is placed before it. The Supreme Court also clarified that it had not pronounced on the merits of either side.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the first appellate court has a duty to re-appreciate the evidence and provide reasoned findings, and failure to do so can result in the case being remanded by higher courts. This judgment reinforces the existing principles of law regarding the duties of the first appellate court and does not introduce any new legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and remanded the case back to the first appellate court. The court emphasized that the first appellate court must re-appreciate the evidence and provide reasoned findings, and failure to do so can result in the case being remanded by higher courts. This judgment underscores the importance of the first appellate court fulfilling its duty to ensure a fair and just judicial process.