Telangana High Court
Barla Babu Rao vs Dachi Aruna on 18 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
APPEAL SUIT No.349 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This appeal suit is filed by the defendants against the
judgment and decree dated 21.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.54 of 2021
on the file of the Agent to Government Court, Bhadradri
Kothagudem.
2. Heard Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Mohd. Subhan Pasha, learned counsel for the
respondents.
3. The appellants herein are defendants and the respondent
herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the parties herein
after referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
4. Brief factual matrix of the case is that plaintiff filed suit vide
O.S.No.54 of 2021 seeking a preliminary decree for the partition of
the suit schedule properties into three equal shares without any
encumbrances among the plaintiff and defendants, for final decree to
allot 1/3rd share to the plaintiff with metes and bounds and to put
her in possession of her shares. Additionally, plaintiff requests
future mesne profits, and perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants from transferring the suit scheduled lands in any manner
and costs of the suit.
2
LNA, J
A.S.No.349 of 2023
5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that plaintiff and defendants
are the natural sons and daughters of the late Barla Prakasam,
father of the plaintiff passed away in 2005 and before his death, he
worked in Singareni Collieries Limited and opted for Voluntary
Retirement Scheme (VRS) with an intention to provide employment to
defendant No.2, subsequently, Defendant No.2 took up his father’s
job in the same company. It is averred that during his lifetime, Barla
Prakasam acquired a wetland measuring Ac.2.13 guntas bearing
survey No.54/1E and a house site measuring 0.05 guntas in
Chatakonda village of the then Kothagudem mandal and apart from
that he also possessed gold ornaments. It is averred that after his
demise, plaintiff and defendants being his class I legal heirs,
succeeded to these immovable properties and as a result, they are
currently in joint possession of the said properties and the
defendants, as the elder brothers of the plaintiff, have been
managing the properties and sharing mesne profits with the plaintiff.
6. It is further averred that defendants have stopped sharing the
mesne profits with the plaintiff, claiming that the properties have
only resulted in losses and also contended that father of the plaintiff
left behind gold ornaments, which are currently in the custody of the
defendants. Vexed with the defendants’ attitude and their refusal to
partition the properties equally, the plaintiff made oral demands for
partition in the presence of elders on 03.10.2020. The defendants,
3
LNA, J
A.S.No.349 of 2023
however, have been postponing the partition on various pretexts. In
a final attempt to resolve the matter, the plaintiff issued a legal
notice on 02.11.2020, but there was no response from the
defendants. Faced with the defendants’ obstinacy, the plaintiff filed
suit in O.S.No.54 of 2021 before the Agent to Government, Bhadradri
Kothagudem.
7. Defendants filed written statement denying the averments
made in the plaint including date of death of their father and
contended that plaintiff is not entitled for any benefits as she
married under Christian Marriage Act. It is further contended that
plaintiff have gifted extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Survey No.68 of
Chatakonda along with gold ornaments and cash at the time of her
marriage towards her share and thus plaintiff received substantive
share in the properties and therefore suit is not maintainable and
further it is specifically contended that defendants have never shared
mesne profits to the plaintiff.
8. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed following
issues:
“i. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
ii. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?
iii. Both the counsel for the plaintiff and the
counsel for the defendants have filed Chief
Affidavits before the Court. The Court has
completed the cross-examination and
recorded statements from both the plaintiff
and the defendant. However, no written
4
LNA, J
A.S.No.349 of 2023
arguments have been filed by either
counsel?”
9. To substantiate their case, plaintiff got examined three
witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3, marked Exs.A.1 to A.5, defendants got
examined as D.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Ex.B1/original marriage
photos of the plaintiff.
10. The trial Court on due consideration of oral and documentary
evidence placed on record passed preliminary decree vide order dated
21.04.2023 and challenging the same present appeal is filed by the
defendants.
11. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is cryptic and there is
no proper evaluation of both the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record and therefore appeal is unsustainable. It is further
contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record and also contended that the
trial Court failed to record reasons and conclusion which is
mandatory.
12. A perusal of the record discloses that learned Agent to
Government has not appreciated the facts of the case while passing
the impugned order as it is the bounden duty of the learned Agent to
Government to take into consideration the averments made in the
written statement and the evidence, appreciate the same on merits
and thereafter, pass a reasoned order.
5
LNA, J
A.S.No.349 of 2023
13. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court and various
High Courts held that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-
judicial authority or a Tribunal shall record reasons for its
conclusions.
14. In “Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan 1,” the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, after considering various judgments, formulated
certain principles which are set out below:-
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to
record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if
such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to
serve the wider principle of justice that justice must
not only be done it must also appear to be done as
well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid
restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds
and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision making process as
observing principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review
by superior Courts.
1 (2010) 9 SCC 496
6
LNA, J
A.S.No.349 of 2023
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries
committed to rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based
on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of
judicial decision making justifying the principle that
reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days
can be as different as the judges and authorities
who deliver them. All these decisions serve one
common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason
that the relevant factors have been objectively
considered. This is important for sustaining the
litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both
judicial accountability and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not
candid enough about his/her decision making
process then it is impossible to know whether the
person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent,
clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber-
stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid
decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the
sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial
powers. Transparency in decision making not only
makes the judges and decision makers less prone to
errors but also makes them subject to broader
scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in
decision-making, the said requirement is now
7
LNA, J
A.S.No.349 of 2023
virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg Jurispredence. See
Ruiz Torijja v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553 at 562
para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford (2001)
EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to article
6 of European Convention of Human Rights which
requires, ‘adequate and intelligent reasons must be
given for judicial decision.’
o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a
vital role in setting up precedents for the future.
Therefore, for development of law, requirement of
giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and
is virtually a part of ‘due process’.”
15. Following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Kranti Associates (one cited supra), the High Court of
Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works v. State of
Gujarat and others” 2 observed as under:-
“At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of
law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non
communication of same itself amounts to denial of
reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in
miscarriage of justice. This Court is bound by the said
judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessity of giving
reason by a body or authority in support of its decision
came for consideration before the Supreme Court in
several cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a
sort of demarcation between administrative orders and
quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the
distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out
and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment
of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India,
(1970) 1 SCR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment2 2022 SCC Online Guj 2530
8
LNA, J
A.S.No.349 of 2023
in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector
Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern
Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (2010) 13
SCC 336; Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood
Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and Abdul Ghaffar v.
State of Bihar (2008) 3 SCC 258, has explained the
horizon of natural justice and reasons have been treated
part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in
holding that reasons are heart and soul of the order.”
16. Thus, the position of law that emerges from the decisions
mentioned above is that assignment of reasons is imperative in
nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the
reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons
must be the result of independent re-appreciation of evidence
adduced and the documents produced in the case.
17. In the instant case, the learned Agent to Government has
evidently not adverted to the merits of the case and contentions set
out by both the parties and allowed the suit by way of a cryptic
judgment.
18. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kranti Associates (first cited supra) and the judgment of the High
Court of Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works (second
cited supra), it is to be held that the reasons, which are the heart
and soul of the order, are obviously missing in the impugned order.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 is unsustainable in
the eye of law and accordingly, the same is set aside.
9
LNA, J
A.S.No.349 of 2023
19. In the result, Appeal Suit is disposed of and the matter is
remitted back to the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem,
with a direction to adjudicate the suit i.e., O.S.No.54 of 2023 afresh
by taking into consideration the facts and the submissions put forth
by both the parties and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with
law, duly assigning the reasons there for. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:18.02.2025
Bw
[ad_1]
Source link