SRI DOKKA SAMUELversusDR. JACOB LAZARUS CHELLY

                               SRI DOKKA SAMUEL                                        A
<                                          v.
                         DR. JACOB LAZARUS CHELLY

                                  MARCH 14, 1997

                  [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]                                B

             Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

-            S. 114-Review-Omission to cite an authority of law-Held, is not a
     .ground for reviewing the prior judgment, saying that there is an e"or apparent
                                                                                       c
      011 the face of the record, since the counsel has committed an e"or in not
      bringing to the notice of the court the relevant precedents.

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2238 of
     1997.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 29.2.96 of the Karnataka High              D
     Court in R.S.A. No. 90 of 1983.

             G.V. Chandrasekhar and P.P. Singh for the Appellant

             P.R. Ramasesh' for the Respondent.
                                                                                       E
             The following Order of the Court was delivered :

             Leave granted.

             We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
                                                                                       F
           This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned
     single judge, made on February 29, 1996 in R.S.A. No. 90/1983 by .Kar•
     nataka High Court. The respondents had filed a suit in the trial Court for·
     declaration that he had purchased two plots bearing Nos. 307 and 308
     admeasuring 40'x31' in Hubli town and for recovery of possession on the
     plea that the appellant has no manner right whatsoever to interfere with G
     his possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, it was ·
     decreed. In the second appeal, the learned Judge confirmed the same. But
     in the review application, the single Judge reheard the matter and reversed
~-   the decree of the appellate Court and confirmed that of the trial Court.
     Thus, this appeal by special leave.                                         H
                                          1137
    1138                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A          It is seen that by an order passed by this Court on 24th November,
    1995, liberty was given to the appellant, in the event of the High Court
    reviewing the order on merits against him, to agitate his rights in this Court.
    The question is : whether the High Court was justified in reviewing the
    earlier order and reversing the finding recorded by the appellate Court? It
    is not in dispute that the sale deed is for a small sum of Rs. 300 and odd
B   and that the property sold commands good market value. The question
    arises : whether the document was a sale deed or is only a document for




C
    collateral purpose? The respondent himself in an earlier suit had pleaded
    that it was an agreement of sale. In view of such an admission, the High
    Court has.wrongly reversed the decree of the appellate Court holding the
    transaction to be a real sale. In the second appeal, the High Court con-
                                                                                      -
    firmed, in the first instance, the decree of the appellate Court. Sub-
    sequently, the High Court has reviewed the judgment and reconsidered the
    matter holding that relevant precedents were not cited. Since this Court
    had given liberty to raise the questions of reviewability of the judgment of
    the High Court; the question arises : whether the High Court could not
D
    have embarked upon appreciation of evidence and considered whether
    there was an error apparent on the face on record? It was contended
    before the learned Single Judge that various decisions were not cited;
    proper consideration was paid; in fact the sale deed was acted upon; and
     that there was no proof that the sale was not for valid consideration. The
E    omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for reviewing the prior
    judgment saying that there is an error apparent on the face of the record,
    since the counsel has committed an error in not bringing to the notice of
     the Court the relevant precedents. In fact, since the respondent had
     claimed that it is not a sale deed but w~xecuted for collateral purpose,
     it was for the respondent to establish thift the sale was for real considera-
F
     tion and he had a valid sale deed duly executed by the appellant. The High
     Court wrongly placed burden on the appellant and reviewed the order and
     heard the matter on merits. The entire approach of the learned Single
     Judge is not correct in Jaw.

G         The ·appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the High
    Court stands set aside and decree of the appellate Court, as confirmed by
    the High Court in the first instance, is upheld. Jn other words, the suit
    stands decreed. No costs.

H    R.P.                                                         Appeal allowed.