Supreme Court Remands Property Dispute Case: Sabir Hussain vs. Syed Mohammad Hassan (2023)

Date of the Judgment: November 06, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 980

Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s judgment in a property dispute without thoroughly examining the evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a long-standing property dispute. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court had appropriately reversed the trial court’s decision regarding the validity of a sale deed and the claim of adverse possession. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with the judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute concerning House No. 24, Chhatripura Main Road, Indore City. The property was originally purchased by Kallu Bhai in the name of his nephew, Mohd. Jafar, via a registered sale deed on April 3, 1913. At the time of purchase, Mohd. Jafar was a minor, approximately three years old. Kallu Bhai passed away on October 25, 1952, without any children. His second wife, Bashir un Nisha, who had been living in the property, died on August 27, 1970. Syed Mohd. Hasan, the respondent, was brought to live with Kallu Bhai after his mother’s death. On November 5, 1975, Mohd. Jafar entered into an agreement to sell the property to Raza Hussain. The sale deed was registered on November 20, 1975. Raza Hussain then filed a suit against Syed Mohd. Hasan on January 17, 1977, seeking possession of the property and damages. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Raza Hussain on April 24, 1995, but the High Court reversed this decision in a first appeal.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially decreed the suit in favor of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, Raza Hussain. However, the High Court, in a first appeal, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The High Court’s decision was based on its assessment of the evidence, particularly the signatures on the sale deed, which raised doubts about the transaction’s validity. The High Court did not delve into the evidence in detail, which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, specifically concerning the validity of registered sale deeds and the concept of adverse possession. The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing the role of a first appellate court in re-appreciating evidence and recording its findings. The court also took into account the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the admissibility and evidentiary value of documents and witness testimonies.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Sabir Hussain’s LRs):

• The trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned and should not have been reversed without proper consideration of the evidence.
• The High Court failed to discuss the entire evidence on record and reversed the findings without giving adequate reasons.
• The sale deed executed by Mohd. Jafar in favor of Raza Hussain was a registered document and its genuineness should not have been doubted.
• The respondent, Syed Mohd. Hasan, was initially a licensee on the property.
• The respondent did not raise the plea of adverse possession in the original written statement.

Arguments by the Respondent (Syed Mohammad Hassan’s LRs):

• The agreement to sell and sale deed were registered within a short span of fifteen days when Mohd. Jafar was not in good health.
• Mohd. Jafar was never in possession of the property; the respondent always possessed it.
• The respondent’s possession was not as a licensee but in his own right and hostile to the knowledge of the owners.
• The plea of adverse possession was indeed raised in the written statement by way of an additional plea.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the High Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s judgment without proper consideration of the evidence on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the court emphasized the principles governing the role of a first appellate court, which requires a thorough re-appreciation of evidence and recording of findings with reasons on all issues.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court emphasized the principles governing the role of a First Appellate Court. The Court stated that the First Appellate Court is required to record its findings dealing with all the issues of law as well as fact and with the evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the parties. The judgment of the First Appellate Court must show conscious application of mind. The findings should be supported by reasons on all the issues and contentions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s primary concern was the High Court’s failure to properly assess the evidence and provide reasoned findings. The court emphasized the importance of a first appellate court’s duty to re-appreciate the evidence and address all issues. The court was also influenced by the fact that the sale deed was a registered document and there were witnesses to the sale deed, which the High Court had not properly considered. The court was also influenced by the fact that the High Court had not considered the evidence in detail before reversing the trial court’s judgment.

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning was based on the procedural lapse by the High Court in not properly considering the evidence. The court did not make any findings on the validity of the sale deed or the claim of adverse possession, but instead, directed the High Court to re-examine the case in detail. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court, as a first appellate court, had a duty to consider all the evidence and provide reasoned findings.

The Supreme Court considered the possibility that the High Court’s decision was correct but concluded that the High Court had not provided sufficient reasons to support its decision. The Supreme Court also considered the fact that the sale deed was a registered document and there were witnesses to the sale deed, which the High Court had not properly considered. The Supreme Court also considered the fact that the High Court had not considered the evidence in detail before reversing the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had not properly exercised its jurisdiction as a first appellate court.

The Supreme Court’s decision was that the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the matter afresh, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made in the order, and strictly considering the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on record by the parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that it had not recorded any finding on any of the issues on appreciation of evidence.

The court stated, “The First Appellate Court is required to record its findings dealing with all the issues of law as well as fact and with the evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the parties.” It further stated, “The judgment of the First Appellate Court must show conscious application of mind. The findings should be supported by reasons on all the issues and contentions.” The court also noted, “In the case in hand, the High Court being the First Appellate Court had not referred to the evidence produced on record by the parties on various issues for re-appreciation and has recorded the finding referring to the evidence in part.”

Key Takeaways

• A first appellate court must thoroughly re-appreciate evidence and record findings with reasons on all issues.
• Registered sale deeds carry significant evidentiary value and should not be doubted without proper justification.
• Courts should consider witness testimonies and all relevant evidence before reversing a trial court’s judgment.
• The Supreme Court has the power to remand cases back to the High Court for fresh consideration if the High Court has not followed proper procedure.

Directions

The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to decide the matter afresh, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made in the order, strictly considering the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on record by the parties. The High Court was requested to give the matter priority in disposal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a first appellate court has a duty to re-appreciate the evidence and record findings with reasons on all issues. This case reinforces the importance of procedural correctness in appellate court proceedings. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the case clarifies the duties of a first appellate court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sabir Hussain vs. Syed Mohammad Hassan highlights the importance of a thorough and reasoned approach by appellate courts when reviewing trial court decisions. The case was remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of evidence and proper application of legal principles.