New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that a first appellate court cannot set aside a trial court's judgment merely by terming it erroneous, and that it must independently evaluate the evidence on record and record its own reasons while reversing a finding of fact.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Kerala High Court that had reversed a partition decree passed in a suit concerning the disputed Will of one Thankam.
Thankam died on 27th August 2011. The defendants, four of her children, claimed that she had executed a registered Will dated 22nd March 1999 bequeathing her property to them. The plaintiff, another daughter, said she had no knowledge of the Will and filed a suit for partition before the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. The trial court held that the Will could not be proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and passed a preliminary decree granting the plaintiff a 2/10th share in the suit property.
On appeal by the defendants, the Kerala High Court set aside the trial court's decree in what the Supreme Court described as a judgment of only two paragraphs, more than a page of which merely reproduced the trial court's own reasoning. The High Court had also directed that the Principal Sub Judge be sent for training, terming the trial court's reasoning the result of "extraneous consideration" and holding that the officer had failed to understand the dispute.
The Supreme Court framed two questions: whether the High Court had properly dealt with the first appeal, and whether the remarks against the trial judge were justified. Referring to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, the Court reiterated that a first appellate court is the final court of fact and must state the points for determination, its decision on them and its reasons, particularly when reversing a decree. Drawing on its rulings in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari and Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, the Bench underscored that reasons are the "lifeblood" of judicial decision-making and that a first appellate court, while it need not restate the entire factual matrix when agreeing with a trial court, cannot pass a cryptic order in a case of reversal without its own reasoning.
“The attitude to be adopted by appellate Courts should be that of a friend, philosopher and a guide rather than wielding the heavy-handed baton of superior authority pointing out errors committed by its underlings.”
The Court also set out the requirements for proving a Will, holding that at least one attesting witness must be examined under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, and that the propounder must satisfy the court that the testator signed the document, understood its nature and effect, and knew its contents, relying on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan. Since the High Court had taken a view contrary to the trial court on these very questions without discussing them, its conclusion, the Bench said, would have been "far more palatable" had it engaged with the evidence.
“If orders such as these are permitted to stand, it sends a wrong message of the judgments of the Civil Courts/Trial Courts being able to be set aside without due effort and application of mind. That, needless to say, would be a grave error.”
On the direction sending the trial judge for training, the Supreme Court held that adverse remarks against judicial officers must meet the threshold laid down in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim and reiterated in S.K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju remarks must be necessary for the decision, supported by evidence, and made only where the officer concerned has had an opportunity to explain. Justice Karol also referred to his own earlier judgment in State of Punjab v. Shikha Trading Co., which held that such remarks must reflect sobriety, moderation and restraint given the potential to affect judicial independence. The Bench found no such justification had been recorded before directing that the trial judge be sent for training.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment and order dated 30th November 2022, including the direction against the trial judge, and restored the first appeal to the file of the High Court to be heard afresh with all contentions left open.
The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Lakshmi vs. Gopi & Ors.
