http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SRI DOKKA SAMUEL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. JACOB LAZARUS CHELLY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      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  the  Karnataka  High  Court.  The respondents had  filled  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 of right  whatsoever to  interfere with  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.      It is  seen that  by an  order passed  by court on 24th November, 1995,  liberty was  given to the appellant, in the event of  the High  Court was  justified  in  reviewing  the earlier  order  and  reversing  the  find  recorded  by  the appellate Court ? It is not in dispute that the sale deed is for a  small sum  of Rs. 300/- and odd and that the property sold commands  good  market  value.  The  questions  arises: whether the  document was a sale deed  or is only a document for 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 confirmed,  in   the  first  instance,  the  decree  of  the appellate Court.  Subsequently, 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  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

consideration was paid; in fact the sale deed was acted  for valid consideration.  The omission  to cite  an authority of law is  not a ground for reviewing the prier 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 was  executed for  collateral purpose,  it was  for  the respondent  to   establish  that   the  sale  was  for  real consideration 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 law.      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.  In  other  words,  the  suit  stands decreed. No costs.