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.

LNA, J

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,

LNA, J

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

LNA, J

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.

LNA, J

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

LNA, J

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

LNA, J

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 judgment

2 2022 SCC Online Guj 2530

LNA, J

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