Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has reiterated that an appellate court should not routinely remand a case to the trial court merely because a particular issue was not separately framed, where the pleadings, evidence and issues already on record enable the appellate court to decide the dispute itself.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the case where a Karta, out of a legal necessity to repay the loan taken for the daughter's marriage, had sold out the Hindu Undivided Family property to the buyer/Appellant. Based on the pleadings and issues arising thereof, the sale deed was upheld by the trial court.

In a First Appeal filed before the Dharwad Circuit Bench of the Karnataka High Court by the plaintiffs-co-sharers, a remand order was passed remanding the case back to the trial court for failing to frame a specific issue of whether the sale deed was sham and that an issue concerning limitation had also not been specifically framed.

Against the High Court's decision of remand, the buyer approached the Supreme Court arguing that even if at all the High Court felt that the trial court had not framed sufficient issues relating to limitation or the sale deed being sham, being a First Appellate Court, it could have addressed those issues, without remanding the matter to the trial court for its consideration.

Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the judgment authored by Justice Bhatti observed that the High Court had unnecessarily remanded the case to the trial court when it could have considered those issues itself, given the fact that the issues arose from that set of facts, pleadings and issues which were already on record before the High Court. [See Ashwini Kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 161]

“When the material was available before the High Court, it should have itself decided the appeal one way or the other. It could have considered the various aspects of the case mentioned in the order of the trial court and considered whether the order of the trial court ought to be confirmed or reversed or modified. It could have easily considered the documents and affidavits and decided about the prima facie case on the material available.”, the Court observed in Ashwini Kumar K. Patel (supra).

Reference was made to the case of P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. v. Pratap Steels Ltd (2002) 2 SCC 686, where the Court observed:

“It is true that a specific issue was not framed by the trial court…The High Court was to examine whether such finding of the trial court was sustainable or not — in law and on facts. Even otherwise the question could have been gone into by the High Court and a finding could have been recorded on the available material inasmuch as the High Court being the court of first appeal, all the questions of fact and law arising in the case were open before it for consideration and decision.”

Applying the law to the facts of the present case, the Court observed:

“In our view, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course, and the Judgment of remand reflects the Appellate Court's incorrect exercise of its discretion. In the case at hand, the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence in accordance with the burden and onus of proof fastened on them. At this stage, directions are given to reframe issues, adduce further evidence, and afford the parties a further opportunity to lead evidence. There were no circumstances preventing the first appellate court from deciding the points in issue. Consequently, remanding the case to the Trial Court is completely contrary to the legal principles laid down by this Court in the decisions mentioned above…”

The appeal was allowed, and the remand order was set aside, restoring the first appeal to the High Court's file.

Cause Title: SHIVAPPA VERSUS SHANTAVVA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 812

Click here to download judgment


Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mr. Anand Kolli, Adv. Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR Mr. Kotresh A M, Adv. Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vijay Bandi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanket Shankrappa Ambali, Adv. Ms. G. Anusha, Adv. Mr. Basheerahmed, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Garg, AOR Mr. Rahul Singh Latwal, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Singh, Adv. Ms. Pulkit, Adv.

Tags: