1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3306 OF 2011
A.P.STATE TRANSPORT CORPN. MAZDOOR
CO OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
LOLUGU ATCHAMMA (DIED PER LRS.) & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order
dated 15.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature,
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (now known as �the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati�) in Appeal Suit No. 1585
of 1994, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court dated 12.09.1994 in O.S. No. 117 of 1988,
dismissing the suit preferred by the respondent No.1,
came to be reversed and the decree of declaration and
possession has been granted in favour of respondent No.1.
2
The core issue involved in the dispute between the
parties is about the exact demarcation of the respective
property and the extent of land occupied by Kattava
thereon. The Trial Court had appointed a Court
Commissioner to assist the Court in arriving at a proper
finding in that regard. The Trial Court, however, upon
perusing the Commissioner�s Report and the other evidence
already on record, opined that the observation of the
Commissioner was incorrect and unacceptable. The Trial
Court further noted that the plaintiff (respondent No.1)
had failed to produce any evidence to establish his case
stated in the plaint that the appellant (defendant No.1)
had encroached upon his property to the extent mentioned
in the plaint.
The Trial Court had assigned more than one reason to
discard the Commissioner�s Report, as is evident from the
elaborate discussion in paragraphs 3, 18 and 19 of the
judgment. Whereas, the High Court disposed of the issue
regarding the efficacy of Commissioner�s Report, if we
may say so, in a brief manner and that too, without fully
dealing with the reasons weighed with the Trial Court in
3
that regard.
We find merits in the grievance of the appellant that
since the High Court was dealing with the First Appeal,
it was expected to answer each of the findings on facts
recorded by the Trial Court as well as law. However, the
manner in which it has been answered in the impugned
judgment is not satisfactory. The High Court has not even
adverted to the different reasons assigned by the Trial
Court in its judgment. Notably, the impugned judgment
runs into thirty two pages but the first twenty nine
pages contain only a reproduction of pleadings and
evidence and brief reference to the findings of the Trial
Court and including the submissions of both sides before
it. Thus, effectively, the Trial Court's judgment has
been reversed by the High Court in 2 pages, without
reversing each of the reasons weighed with the Trial
Court to answer the matters in issue.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and
relegate the parties before the High Court for
reconsideration of the First Appeal on its own merits
in accordance with law afresh. All questions are left
open.
4
We request the High Court to decide the remanded
appeal expeditiously as the suit was filed in the year
1985.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No
costs.
�...................J
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
�...................J
(AJAY RASTOGI)
New Delhi
February 28, 2019
5
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 3306/2011
A.P.STATE TRANSPORT CORPN. MAZDOOR
CO OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
LOLUGU ATCHAMMA (DIED PER LRS.) & ORS. Respondent(s)
([ RETAIN ITS POSITION ] IA No.15358/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)
Date : 28-02-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
For Appellant(s)
Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR
Mr. Ali Sethmalani, Adv.
Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Pratyush Raj, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
