JANARDHAN NARASIMHA NAYAKversusBALWANT VENKATESH KULKARNI AND ANR.

A                    JANARDHAN NARASIMHA NAY AK
                                  v.                                                   1
                 BALWANT VENKA TESH KULKARNI AND ANR.

                                   MARCH 7, 2007

B         [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PAl'fTA, JJ.]


          Indian Contract Act, 1872/Specijic Relief Act, 1963:                         .)
                                                                                             '
            Suit for specific performance filed by respondent no.I-Decreed by
c     trial Courl-Appeal dismissed by first Appellate Court-Second appeal
      allowed by High Court-On appeal, Held: No reason indicated by the High
      Court to set aside the order offirst Appellate Court-Hence, matter remitted
      to High Court for disposal afresh on merits--Civil Procedure Code, 1908-
    . Judgment/Order.
D          Respondent No. I, the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance
    of the contract of sale. Suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the appeal was
    dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Second appeal was allowed by the High
    Court. Hence the.present appeal.

E        Appellant contended that the second appeal was allowed by High Court
    without indicating any basis and reason; and that the entire approach of First
    Appellate Court was vitiated by pre-conceived mind that the agreement of sale
    cannot be given effect once there was a sale in between the parties.

           Respondents submitted that though the judgment of the High Court is
F    not happily worded, yet in essence the High Court has found First Appellate
     Court's conclusion to be vitiated.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court                                                •
        HELD: Merely because the Trial Court had occasion to see the witness
G that cannot be a ground to hold that First Appellate Court had pre-conceived
  notion. No reasons had been indicated by the High Court to set aside the order
  of the First Appellate Court even without analysing the evidence and the                  ,Y·
  respective stand. Hence, the maUer is remitted to the High Court for fresh
  disposal on merits. [Paras 6 and 7) (628'-D-F)

H                                         626
      JANARDHANNARASIMHA NAY AK1·. BALWANTVENKATESH KULKARNI [PASA YAT,J.J 627

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5807 of2000.                 A·
          From the Judgment and final Order dated 15.7.1998 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.S.A. No. 733/1992.

           Kiran Suri and S.J. Amit for the Appeliant.
                                                                                       B
           Vijay Kumar for the Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I . Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment
     rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the       C
     second appeal filed by the respondent no. I under Section I 00 of the Code
     of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC').

           2. Respondent No. I is the plaintiff and had filed the suit for specific
'I
     performance of the contract of sale dated 31.1.1972. Suit was decreed by the
     Trial Court and the appeal was dismissed by the First Appel·late Court. The       D
     second defendant-respondent no.2 took the stand that he was the purchaser
     subsequent to the agreement for sale, he had no knowledge of the agreement
     and had no notice of the sale and he is not bound by the earlier agreement
     of sale. The Trial Court came to hold that defendant no.2 had knowledge of
     the agreement. The First Appellate Court held that either he had dishonest
     notion or had notice. At the time of the admission in the second appeal the       E
     following question of law was formulated:                             '

            "Whether the Court below was just in placing reliance on the order
            of the Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the permission of sale of
            the land and thus hold against the appellant?"
                                                                                       F
          3. Thereafter with the following observations/conclusions the second
     appeal was allowed.

            "When the trial court on evidence has come to the conclusion on
            seeing the witness in the box, appreciated the demeanor, the appellate
            court without considering the points raised by the trial court went on     G
            discussing the legal position and came to a different conclusion which
            I have no hesitation, to set aside on the ground that they are not
            warranted by the facts of the case. The entire approach of the appellate
            court is vitiated by the pre-considered mind that the agreement of sale
            cannot be given effect to once there was a sale in between the parties.    H
    628                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007) 3 S.C.R.

A             This view is certainly wrong and under such pre-considered notion,
              the approach made by the appellate court which has resulted in wrong
              delivery of the judgment."

           4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the second appeal
    was allowed without indicating any basis and reason. The conclusions are
B   also without any foundation. It was erroneously held that the entire approach
    of First Appellate Court was vitiated by pre-conceived mind that the agreement
    of sale cannot be given effect once there was a sale in between the parties.
    No such finding was recorded by the First Appellate Court.                        ), ,

          5. Learned. counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted
C that though the judgment of the High Court is not happily worded, yet in
    essence the High Court has found First Appellate Court's conclusion to be
    vitiated.

          6. Perusal of the order of the High Court quoted above shows that there
D was total non-application of mind. There is practically no reason indicated as
  to why the High Court took the view that First Appellate Court's order was
  on account of a pre-conceived mind. Merely because the Trial Court had
  occasion to see the witness that cannot be a ground to hold that First
  Appellate Court had pre-conceived notion. No reasons had been indicated by
  the High Court to set aside the order of the First Appellate Court even
E without analysing the evidence and the respective stand.
          7. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court, remit the matter
    to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits. As the matter is pending since
    long, we request the High Court to dispose of the second appeal as early as
    practicable preferably by the end of August, 2007.
F
             8. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

    S.K.S.                                                         Appeal allowed.