KANAILAL & ORS. versus RAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS.
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 602, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
(2017] 7 S.C.R. 602 
KANAILAL & ORS. 
v. 
RAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.4165 of 2008) 
AUGUST 23, 2017 
(R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100 and Or. XLJ, r.31 -
Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of trial Court, 
dismissed by the High Court in limine - Held: High Court while 
deciding the appeal neither set out the facts nor the submissions 
urged by the appellants in support of their appeal and nor gave 
any reason as to why there was no merit in the submission of 
appellants and why the appeal did not involve any substantial 
question of law as required to be made out uls. 100 - Further, there 
D was non-compliance with the requirements of Or.XU, in regard to 
the contents of the judgment of the Appellate Court i.e. (a) the points 
for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the 
decision," (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, 
the relief to which appellant is entitled etc. - Since, judgment 
E 
impugned did not satisfy the requirements of s.100 and !or Or.XU, 
r.31 of CPC, it is legally unsustainable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Mere perusal of the impugned order would go to 
show that the High Court while deciding the appeal neither set 
F 
out the facts nor the submissions urged by the appellants in 
support of their appeal and nor given any reason as to why the 
submissions urged by the appellants have no merit and why the 
appeal
does not involve any substantial question of law as is 
required to be made out under Section 100 of the Code. It has 
been consistently emphasized the need for assigning reasons in 
G support of its conclusion and while doing so must deal with all 
H 
the issues raised by the parties to the /is. (Paras 9, 10)[605-E-FJ 
Jayanmti De & Anr. v. Abani Kanta Barat and Ors. 
(2011) 6 SCC 455; Santosh Nazari v. Purushottam 
Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179 : (2001] 
602
KANAILAL & ORS. v. RAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS. 
603 
1 SCR 948; Union of India & Ors. v. Jai Prakash 
A 
Singh & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 712 : [20071 3 SCR 757 
- referred to. 
2.1 That apart, Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code which deals 
with the contents, date and the signature of judgment is also 
apposite to take note of. [Para 11) (606-E) 
B 
2.2 It is clear from mere reading of the Rule 3l(a) to (d) 
that it makes it legally obligatory upon the Appellate Court (both-
first and second Appellate Court) as to what should the judgment 
of the Appellate Court contain. Sub-clause(a) provides that the 
judgment must formulate and state the points arising in the case c 
for determination. Sub-clause(b) provides that the Court must 
give decision on such points and sub- clause(c) provides that the 
judgment shall state the reasons for the decision. So far as sub-
clause (d) is concerned, it applies in those cases where the 
Appellate Court has reversed the decree. In such case, the Court 
has to specify the relief to which the appellant has become entitled D 
to as a result of the decree having been reversed in appeal at his 
·instance. [Paras 12, 13) [606-H; 607-A-BI 
3. While deciding the second appeal which lies only to the 
High Court, the Court has to further ensure compliance of the 
requirements of Section 100 of the Code in addition to the 
requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code. In other words, 
the High Court while hearing the second appeal at the time of its 
admission has
to first find out whether the second appeal involves 
any substantial question(s) of law and if the Court finds that the 
appeal does involve any substantial question(s) of law then such 
question(s) is/are required to be formulated. The appeal can be 
then heard finally only on such formulated question(s). [Paras 14, 
15] [607-C-D] 
4. If however, the Court, at the time of hearing the appeal 
E 
F 
on the question of admission, comes to a conclusion that the appeal 
G 
does not involve any such question within the meaning of Section 
. 100 of the Code, then it has to pass a reasoned order keeping in 
view the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31. Indeed, this being 
the mandatory requirements of law, its non-compliance by the 
Appellate Court render their judgment bad in law. [Para 1611607-
E) 
H
604 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference 
(2011) 6 sec 455 
referred to 
Para9 
(2001] 1 SCR 948 
referred to 
Para9 
[2007) 3 SCR 757 
referred to 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4165 
of2008. 
From the Final Order dated 09 .09 .1999 passed by the High Court 
of Calcutta at Kolkata in SAT No.1082 of 1999 re-numbered S.A. 
No.740/1999. 
Shekhar Kumar, Adv. for the Appellants. 
Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Adv. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the 
D 
defendants against the final judgment and order dated 09 .09 .1999 passed 
by the High Court of Calcutta in S.A.T. No.1082of1999 (re-numbered 
as S.A. No.740of1999) whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was 
summarily dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). 
E 
2. Few relevant facts need mention in brief infra. 
F 
G 
H 
3.The appellants herein are the defendants whereas the 
respondents are the plaintiffs in the civil suit out of which this appeal 
arises. 
4. The respondents filed the civil suit being Title Suit No. 37 of 
1991 before the Sub Divisional Court of the Muns if, Jhargram, District 
. Midnapore against the appellants inter alia seeking partition in relation 
to the suit properties. The appellants filed their written statement and 
denied the plaint averments. Parties went to trial on the issues framed 
for its
determination. 
' 5. By judgment/decree dated 26.06.1992, the Trial Court dismissed 
the suit. The respondents, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal being Title 
Appeal No. 240of1992 before the Additional District Judge, 6'h Court, 
Midnapore. By judgment/decree dated 28.01.1999, the first Appellate 
Court (Additional District Judge, 6'h Co.urt) allowed the appeal filed by
K.ANAILAL & ORS. v. RAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS. 
605 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
the plaintiffs, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and A 
decreed the plaintiffs' suit. 
6. The appellants (defendants), felt aggrieved, filed second appeal 
being S.A.T. No.1082of1999 (re-numbered as S.A. No. 740of1999) 
. before the High Court. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed 
the appeal in limine, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by 
B 
special leave before this Court by the defendants. 
7. The impugned order reads as under: 
"This appeal is summarily dismissed under Order 41 Rule 
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
c 
There will be no order as to costs." 
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal 
of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and 
while setting aside of the impugned order, remand the case to the High 
Court for deciding the second appeal afresh after framing proper D 
substantial questions oflaw, if found to arise in the case. 
9. Mere perusal of the impugned order quoted supra would go to 
show that the High Court while deciding the appeal neither set out the 
facts nor the submissions urged by the appellants in support of their 
· appeal and nor given any reason as to why the submissions urged by the 
E 
appellants have no merit and why the appeal does not involve any 
substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 
100 of the Code. (See- 2011 (6) SCC 455 -
Jayanmti- De & Anr. vs. 
Abani Kanta Barat and Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 455 and Santosh Hazari 
vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., (200 l) 3 SCC 179). 
10. This Court has consistently emphasized the need for assigning 
reasons in support ofits conclusion and while doing so must deal with all 
the issues raised by the parties to the lis. Indeed, this Court has made 
the following very pertinent observation's on this issue in Union of India 
& Ors. Vs. Jai Prakash Singh & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 712 which 
read as under: 
"Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest 
copsideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set 
forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of 
. ·an application of its mind, all the more when its order is 
F 
G 
H.
606 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 7 S.C.R. 
amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of 
reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not 
sustainable. Reasons are live links between the mind of 
the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the 
decision or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons substitute 
subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording 
reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face 
of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually 
impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function 
or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the 
validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable 
part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient 
to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. 
Another rationale is that the affected party can know why 
the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary 
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for 
the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The 
'inscrutable face of a sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with 
a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 
11. That apart, Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code which deals with 
the contents, date and the signature of judgment is also apposite to take 
note of. It reads as under: 
"31. Contents, date and signature of judgment.- The 
judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall 
state-
( a) the points for
determination; 
(b) the decision thereon; 
(c) the reasons for the decision; and 
(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, 
the relief to which the appellant is entitled, 
and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and 
dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring there in." 
12. It is clear frQm mere reading of the Rule 31(a) to (d) that it 
makes it legally obligatory upon the Appellate Court (both-first and second 
Appellate Court) as to what should the judgment of the Appellate Court 
contain.
KANAILAL & ORS. v. RAM CHANDRA SINGH & ORS. 
607 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
13. Sub-clause( a) provides that the judgment must formulate and 
A 
state the points arising in the case for determination. Sub-clause(b) 
provides that the Court must give decision on such points and sub-
clause( c) provides that the judgment shall state the reasons for the 
decision. So far as sub-clause (d) is concerned, it applies in those cases 
where the Appellate Court has reversed the decree. In such case, the 
B 
Court has to specify the relief to which the appellant has become entitled 
to as a result of the decree having been reversed in appeal at his instance. 
14. While deciding the second appeal which lies only to the High 
Court, the Court has to further ensure compliance of the requirements 
of Section 100 of the Code in addition to the requirements of Order 41 
Rule 31 of the Code set out above. 
1 S. In other words, the High Court while hearing the second appeal 
at the time of its admission has to first find out whether the second 
appeal involves any substantial question(s) oflaw and ifthe Court finds 
c 
that the appeal does involve any substantial question(s) oflaw then such 
question(s) is/are required to be formulated. The appeal can be then 
D 
heard finally only on such formulated question( s ). (See Santosh Hazari 
(supra). 
16. If however, the Court, at the time of hearing the appeal on the 
question of admission, comes to a conclusion that the appeal does not 
involve
any such question within the meaning of Section I 00 of the Code, 
E 
then it has to pass a reasoned order keeping in view the requirements of 
Order 41 Rule 31 set out above. Indeed, this being the mandatory 
· requirements of law, its non-compliance by the Appellate Court render 
their judgment bad in law. 
17. As mentioned above, since the judgment impugned does not 
F 
satisfy the requirements of either Section 100 or/and Order 41 Rule 31 
of the Code, it is legally unsustainable. 
18. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is, 
accordingly, allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The case'is remanded 
to the High Court for hearing of the appeal afresh in accordance with 
G 
law keeping in view the aforementioned observations. 
Ankit Gyan 
Appeal allowed.