The Supreme Court has reiterated that remand of a civil matter to the trial court should not be ordered as a matter of routine, particularly where the pleadings, issues and evidence already available on record enable the first appellate court to adjudicate the dispute. Setting aside a remand order passed by the Karnataka High Court, the Court directed the High Court to decide the pending appeals on merits.
The Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria has relied on the settled principle that remand should not become an ordinary procedural response whenever an appellate court finds some deficiency in the trial court’s approach. Where the dispute can be resolved on the existing pleadings, issues and evidence, the appellate court should ordinarily undertake that exercise itself.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The litigation arose from a partition suit instituted in 2015 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Dharwad. The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession in respect of five items of property and also sought a declaration that a sale deed executed by Madiwalappa in favour of Defendant No. 2 was illegal, null and void and not binding on their share.
The dispute concerning Item No. 5 centred on a registered sale deed dated June 28, 1982, covering 5 acres and 12 guntas in RS/Block No. 137/3 at Amminbhavi village, Dharwad Taluk. The plaintiffs alleged that the transaction was sham and bogus and contended that Madiwalappa, who was allegedly addicted to bad habits and vices, had no legal necessity to alienate the property and that the family had derived no benefit from the transaction.
The purchaser, however, maintained that the sale was valid and binding. His case was that Madiwalappa had sold the property to repay loans, including a loan incurred towards his daughter’s marriage and a bank loan. He also asserted that he had remained in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property as its absolute owner from the date of the sale.
The trial court had framed issues concerning the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family, an earlier partition dated January 4, 1980, the validity of the 1982 sale deed on the ground of family legal necessity, and the plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief.
While the trial court accepted the plaintiffs’ claim regarding Items 1 to 4, it rejected their challenge concerning Item No. 5. It found that the plaintiffs had failed to produce credible evidence establishing the allegation that Madiwalappa was addicted to bad vices.
The court also noted that the sale deed was registered according to law and that the signature of Madiwalappa on the document had not been disputed. At the time of the transaction, Madiwalappa was the Karta of the HUF, while his son was a minor. The recitals in the sale deed recorded that Madiwalappa required funds to discharge loans incurred for marriage-related expenses and that a sale consideration of ₹16,000 had been paid.
The trial court further relied on the recital that possession had been delivered to the purchaser on the date of execution. It rejected the argument that the purchaser could not be treated as being in possession merely because his name was absent from the revenue records, observing that possession followed title acquired through the registered sale deed.
The trial court additionally held that the plaintiffs had challenged the 1982 sale deed after a delay of 33 years. Referring to Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it held that a challenge to the transaction was required to be brought within three years from the date of execution or knowledge and consequently denied the relief of declaration.
The matter subsequently reached the Karnataka High Court in first appeals. While the High Court upheld the trial court’s findings regarding Items 1 to 4, it disagreed with the approach concerning Item No. 5 and remitted that portion of the dispute to the trial court.
The High Court was of the view that although the plaintiffs had specifically pleaded that the 1982 sale deed was sham and had not been acted upon, the trial court had not framed a specific issue addressing that question.
The High Court also observed that limitation was a question of law and that the trial court ought to have framed a specific issue on limitation even though the defendant had not expressly pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. It further noted that material relating to the purchaser’s alleged possession had not been placed before the court and concluded that the matter required reconsideration.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the trial court to frame appropriate issues, permit the parties to adduce further evidence where necessary and reconsider the dispute relating to Item No. 5.
The Supreme Court confined its consideration to whether the remand ordered by the High Court was legally justified. The appellant argued that the remand was unwarranted because the issues framed by the trial court were comprehensive and covered the dispute arising from the pleadings.
The appellant also relied on the principle that a first appellate court has broad jurisdiction to examine questions of fact and law and should ordinarily decide the appeal itself rather than send the matter back to the trial court.
The respondents, on the other hand, defended the remand order, arguing that the parties would not suffer prejudice because the High Court had merely directed the trial court to frame the necessary issues and permit additional evidence.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions concerning the circumstances in which an appellate court should exercise the power of remand.
Relying upon Ashwini Kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel, the Court reiterated that a High Court should not ordinarily remand a case merely because it finds some reasoning of the lower court to be incorrect. Where the material necessary for adjudication is already available, the appellate court should ordinarily decide the appeal itself.
The Court also referred to P. Purushottam Reddy v. Pratap Steels Ltd., where it had recognised that even where a particular issue was not separately framed, the appellate court could examine the relevant question where the parties and the trial court had already addressed it and the necessary material was available on record.
Similarly, in Zarif Ahmad (Dead) Through LRs. v. Mohd. Farooq, the Court had emphasised that although Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers an appellate court to remand a case, the appellate court also has the power to take additional evidence. Order XLI Rule 24 permits the appellate court to finally determine a case where the evidence on record is sufficient.
Applying those principles, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had not decided the suit without relevant issues.
The Court noted that Issue No. 2 comprehensively dealt with the earlier partition dated January 4, 1980, while Issue No. 3 specifically concerned the sale of Item No. 5 through the registered sale deed dated June 28, 1982 and its validity on the ground of family legal necessity.
Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, the absence of a separately worded issue specifically describing the sale deed as a “sham” document did not justify sending the case back to the trial court.
The Court stressed that the parties had already led oral and documentary evidence in accordance with the burden and onus of proof. There was no circumstance preventing the first appellate court from deciding the controversy on the material already before it.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning also reflects its concern with unnecessary prolongation of civil litigation.
At the same time, the Court clarified that its ruling should not be understood as preventing appellate courts from permitting parties to produce additional evidence in appropriate circumstances, including by exercising their powers under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The critical point is that remand must be warranted by the circumstances of the particular case.
Since the Supreme Court was examining only the legality of the remand and not the merits of the underlying dispute concerning the sale deed, it expressly refrained from deciding the parties’ substantive claims.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
