A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria has held that a first appellate court should not ordinarily remand a matter back to the trial court when complete pleadings and sufficient evidence are already available on record. Addressing the legal issue of whether the High Court was justified in remanding a partition suit concerning a specific schedule property back to the trial court for reframing issues and adducing fresh evidence, the apex court set aside the remand order and restored the appeals before the High Court for adjudication on merits.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose out of a suit for partition and separate possession (O.S. No. 143 of 2015) filed on March 17, 2015, in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Dharwad. The plaintiffs (including Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, along with Plaintiff No. 1 Sharawwa, who died during the pendency of the suit) contended that a Hindu Undivided Joint Family existed with Madiwalappa as the propositus. They claimed partition of Plaint Schedule Item Nos. 1 to 5 and a declaration that a registered sale deed dated June 28, 1982, executed by Madiwalappa in favour of Defendant No. 2 (Shivappa) for Item No. 5, was illegal, null, void, and not binding.
Item No. 5 comprised 5 Acres 12 Guntas in RS/Block No. 137/3 in Amminbhavi village, Dharwad Taluk. The plaintiffs alleged that Madiwalappa was addicted to bad habits and vices, the sale deed was sham and bogus, and there was no family legal necessity or benefit derived from the sale.
Defendant No. 2 resisted the suit, asserting that he purchased Item No. 5 under a valid registered sale deed on June 28, 1982, to enable Madiwalappa to repay loans taken for his daughter’s marriage expenses and a bank loan. Defendant No. 2 maintained that he was in exclusive possession as the absolute owner and that the suit was filed in collusion with Defendant No. 1 to grab the property thirty-three years after the transaction.
The Trial Court framed five issues, including whether Defendant No. 2 proved the 1980 partition and whether Madiwalappa sold Item No. 5 for family legal necessity. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part, granting 1/3rd share each in Item Nos. 1 to 4 to Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and Defendant No. 1. Regarding Item No. 5, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove Madiwalappa had bad vices, Madiwalappa was the Karta of the joint family in 1982 when Defendant No. 1 was a minor, valuable consideration of Rs. 16,000 was paid, possession followed title, and the suit challenging the 1982 sale deed was barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
On appeal (RFA No. 100251 of 2020 and RFA CROB No. 100005 of 2023), the High Court confirmed the trial court’s findings on Item Nos. 1 to 4, but reversed the findings on Item No. 5. The High Court remitted the matter back to the Trial Court to frame specific issues regarding whether the sale deed was a sham document, whether it was acted upon, the question of limitation under Section 3(1) and Article 109 of the Limitation Act, and possession, while allowing the parties to adduce further evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, counsel for Defendant No. 2 (Appellant), argued that the remand of Item No. 5 to the Trial Court was prima facie illegal and unwarranted. He submitted that Issues Nos. 2 and 3 framed by the Trial Court were comprehensive in light of the pleadings. He contended that the First Appellate Court was required to exercise all the jurisdiction of the trial court to decide the issues itself and that the remand would perpetuate litigation for another decade or two. Relying on Ashwini Kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel & Ors., he argued that remand is guided by judicial discretion and is not a matter of course.
Conversely, Mr. Sanket Shankrappa Ambali, counsel for the Respondents, argued that the remand order did not prejudice either party and was sustainable. He submitted that while the plaintiffs needed to place evidence regarding knowledge to bring the suit within limitation, Defendant No. 2 was required to prove exclusive possession, and both questions could be decided upon remand.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Precedents
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the remand order in light of established legal principles. The bench reviewed key precedents governing the exercise of appellate power to remand cases.
Referencing Ashwini Kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel & Ors., the Court highlighted:
“In our view, the High Court should not ordinarily remand a case under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC to the lower court merely because it considered that the reasoning of the lower court in some respects was wrong. Such remand orders lead to unnecessary delays and cause prejudice to the parties to the case. When the material was available before the High Court, it should have itself decided the appeal one way or the other. It could have considered the various aspects of the case mentioned in the order of the trial court and considered whether the order of the trial court ought to be confirmed or reversed or modified. It could have easily considered the documents and affidavits and decided about the prima facie case on the material available. In matters involving agreements of 1980 (and 1996) on the one hand and an agreement of 1991 on the other, as in this case, such remand orders would lead to further delay and uncertainty. We are, therefore, of the view that the remand by the High Court was not necessary.”
The Court also cited P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. v. Pratap Steels Ltd., where it was observed:
“It is true that a specific issue was not framed by the trial court. Nevertheless, the parties and the trial court were very much alive to the issue whether Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act was complied with or not and the contentions advanced by the parties in this regard were also adjudicated upon. The High Court was to examine whether such finding of the trial court was sustainable or not — in law and on facts. Even otherwise the question could have been gone into by the High Court and a finding could have been recorded on the available material inasmuch as the High Court being the court of first appeal, all the questions of fact and law arising in the case were open before it for consideration and decision.”
Furthermore, the bench cited Zarif Ahmad (Dead) Through LRs. & Anr. v. Mohd. Farooq:
“No doubt, Section 107 CPC empowers the appellate court to remand a case, but it simultaneously empowers the appellate court to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. Rule 24 Order 41 CPC provides that where evidence on record is sufficient, the appellate court may determine the case finally. It is not a healthy practice to remand a case to the trial court unless it is necessary to do so as it makes the parties to wait for the final decision of a case for the period which is avoidable. Only in rare situations should a case be remanded, e.g., when the trial court has disposed of a suit on a preliminary issue without recording evidence and giving its decision on the rest of the issues, but it is not so in the present case.”
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court observed that Issue Nos. 2 and 3 framed by the Trial Court were comprehensive and covered the validity of the sale and partition. The bench noted that the parties had already adduced oral and documentary evidence in accordance with their respective burdens of proof.
The Court held that “In our view, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course, and the Judgment of remand reflects the Appellate Court’s incorrect exercise of its discretion.”
The bench emphasized that “The correctness or otherwise of the case of the contesting parties is appreciated from the pleadings, issues, oral and documentary evidence, and a finding can be returned instead of remitting the matter to the Trial Court.”
The Court clarified that discretion for remand is to be exercised “when imminently warranted by the circumstances of a given case.”
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the findings in the High Court’s judgment regarding Item No. 5 of the suit schedule property as well as the order of remand to the Trial Court. The appeals were restored before the High Court for the limited purpose of deciding the matter on merits. The civil appeals were accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Shivappa v. Shantavva and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 22982-22983 of 2026)
Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date: August 13, 2026
