The High Court · 2025

...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS Dachi Aruna, W/o Dachi Bhaskar, Age '13 yrs., Occ. Household, er. No_ .12- 466, [\/allaram Village l\/anuguru Mandal, Biadradri Kothagudem District. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 ...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the Judgment and Decree O.S.No. 5412021 , dated 2110412023 on the file of the Court of Agent to Government. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Mohd Subhan pasha The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: j,:l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY APPEA L SUIT No.349 of2023 JUDGMENI: This app,:al suit is filcd by the defendanls against the judgment arrd ,lecrce dated 21 .O4.2023 passed i:'l O.S.No 54 of 2027 on the f 11: c f the Agent to GJu..r-..rt Court, Bhadradri Kothagudt:r r

2. Hearc Sri K .Iagadishwar Reddy, learned coun;el for the appellant and Sri Mohd. Subhan Pasha, learned counsel for the respondcrrtr;.

3. The rLppe llants herein are dclcndants atld tht re spotldcnt herein is t.h: p zLintiff in thc surt. For conveniencc, the l).'rlics herein after referrrd Lo as lhey are arrayed in,thc suit.

4. Brir:f factrtrl matrix ol lhc case is that plaintitl filrd suit vide O.S.No.54 ,f 2'.027 seeking a preliminary decree for the partition of the suit sc he cl r1e propertics into three equal shares I 'rithout any encumblzrn:cs lmorlg the plaintilf and dcfe ndants, for lirral clecree to allot 1 / 3't sha r e to the plaintiff u'ith mete s and boilncl-s and to put her in possession of her shares. Additionally, plainliff requests future mer;nc profits, and perpetual injunction rest rainrng the defendanl-s lronr transierring thd "r-,ii "tft.art"a lands in 1ny manner and costs c f tht: suit O 2

5. LNA, J A.5.No.319 of 2023 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 2OO5 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 .r survey No.54/ 1E and a house site measuring 0.05 guntas in Chatakonda village of Lhc thcn 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 possessio,n 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. lt is further averred that defendants have stopped sharing the mesne profits with the plaintiff, claimrng 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 partitio* the properties equally, the plaintiff made oral demands for partition in the presence of eiders on O3.10.2O20. The defendalts, ';' j. '4'Y ' ./ ' ,-no,, .1.5. No.349 of2023 hou,ever, L.are lt:en postponing the partition on various pretexts. In a hnal at1.e npr- to resolve thc matter, the plaintiff isst:ed a lega1 notice on O'2 .1 I .2O2O, but there was no responsc from the defendants. Fzu:ed with the defendants' obstinacy, tl-rc plaintiff filed suit in O.S.l{o .:>1 of 2O2l before Lhe Agent to Governmcnt Bhadradri Kothagudt:n L. De fen lart'.s hled written statement denying the averments 7 . made in t1.e plaint including date of death of their father and contendec. lha t plaintiff is not entitled for an-r''- benc liLs as she married un ler lhrrstian Marriage Acl. It is lurther con -ended that plaintiff ha ve 5;ifted extent of Ac 0.1p guntas in r9ur"t y No 68 of chatakondrr erlc,ng with gold ornaments and casl'r at lhe lime of her marriage t< u.arcs her share and thus plaintiff recclr,e<-I substantive share ir-r tl e pt-operties and therefore suit is not m ar [r t r.rinelble and further it is specifically contencled that defendants havc r,ever shared mcsne prcl ts -o the Plaintiff. Ba:;irLg ()11 the above pleadings, the trial Court lrarlcd following

8. TSSLlCS 'i. Whether the suit is barred bg limitation? ii. To uhat relief the plainttff i.s entitled? iii. Both the counsel for the pLainttJf and the <:ounsel for the defendants haue ftled Ci'tieJ' ,\ffidauits before the Court. The Court ,\as completed the cross-examinotion ctnd ;ecorded stolements from both the pLa tiJi' 'tnd the defendant. I{oueuer, no urii ten 4 LNA, J 4.5.No.349 of202j arguments haui been fi.led bg either counsel?" 9 . To substantiate witnesses i.e., p.Ws. 1 examined as D.Ws.1 their case, plaintiff got examined three to 3, p21[cd Exs.A.l ro A.S, defendants got to 3 and marked IIx. B 1 / original marriage photos of the plaintiff. 10. The trial Court on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on recorrr passed preliminary decree vide order dated 21.O4.2023 and challenging the same present appeal is filed by the defendants I1. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment and decree passed by (he Lrial 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.

72. 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. t' t I a ,ro,, .1..t, No.319 oI2023 13. In a c rtella of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and various t .. .-:f{ig}y: @es1tr.-,held. thal. any order.:p*sed.: by". a Cor-lrt or'a qua8ia'+: i;'ri:'r'rr:$i{ii': '+'tl judicial au ho'r[' or a Tribunal shall recorC reasorls for its conclusior.s

14.In"KrantiAssocicrtesa.MasoodAhmed'Khant,"'heHon'ble Supreme C trLrt, after considering various judgmcllts, forrnulated certaln prln :iple s n hich are set out below:- a. .n India the judicial trend has always becn to rec:lrd reasons, even in administrativc decisions if sr-rr'h rlecisions affect anyone.prejudicially. b ,\ quasi-judicial authority must record rcasons in su T)llort of its conclusions. c. hrsistence on rccording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principlc of justice that justir:e rLlltst no1. only be done it must also appear to bc ':lonc as lrc 1. d. Ilecording of reasons also opcrates as :L "':rlid restraint on any possible arbitrary exelcise of jucliciaJ ar-rd quasi-judicial or even adrninistr:il ive po"\ er. e. Rcasons reassure that, discretion has br:en exr:r'cised by the decision maker on relevant groultds and by disregarding extraneous consideratiot ts. f Fleasons have virtually become as indispensabLe a co-lrponent of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by ludlcia-l, qu a si-judicial and even by administrative bodics. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial rt-'r iew by r;uperior Courts. 1(2010) 9 SiC C 4(),1 t: r,.. LNA, J or2023 6 ".r;.::"'ae h. The ongoing judiciar trcnd in ,, committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevalt facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying Lhe principle that reason is the soul ofjustice. i. Judicial or even quasi_judicial opinions thcsc 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 objectiveiy considered. This is important for sustaining thc litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j:' Insistence on re€son.is a requirement .for.both judicial accountability and trar-rsparency. k. lf a Judge or a quasi judicial authority is nor candid enough about his/her dccision making process then it is impossiblc to know whether the person deciding is farthful 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 rcasons or ,rubber_ stamp reasons' is not to be equated w.ith a vatid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparcncy is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial po\,vers. 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_Z3Z). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in aftision-making, the said requirement is now ':: 7 LNA, J .a.S.No.349 of 2023 virluallv a component of human rights and u as cor siidered part o[ Strasbourg Jurispredence See Rrr z Tonjja v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553 aL 552 patz 29 and Anya v. University of Oxiord (20{)1) tr\\ (lA Cir, 405, wherein the Court referred to artir:le 6 c,f European Convention of Human Rights rvh ch reqliires, 'adequate ald intelligent reasons must be gi.,,: n for judicial decision.' ' o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments pla'z a vrta r-o1e in setting up precedents for the ft-r t.u re Th,--:efore, for development of law, requiremer-rt of giving reasons for the decision is of the essclrce a nd is virtually a part of 'due process'." 15 Follo uinq the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Il, ranti Associcttes (one cited supra), the lr irlh Courl of Gujarat in Agytrarual Dgeing dnd Printing Works u. State of Gujo.rdt d.t,-d others'z observed as under:- ',\t he outset, we notice that it is settled legal positiorr of la!, that rcasons are heart and soul of the order anti ron cornmunication o[ same itself amounts to deni.rl of ree sonable opportunity of hearing, resulting ill nris,:arriage of justice. This Court is bound bv thc r.ard ju(iFiments hereinafter referred to. The necessity oI gtl ing rer son b1. a body or authority in support of its do(irion cnrre for consideration before the Suprerne Courl in so'r'ra1 cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognizt C a sor-t of demarcation between administrative orders itnd ctuasi-judicial orders but with the passage of Lime the cListinction between the two got blurred ald thinned out anC virtually reachcd a vanishing point in the judgrLent cr1 t:re Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of L.r 1ia, (1!)'/01 I SCR. The llon'ble Supreme Court vrde juclgrlent 2 2OZTaCC. ( )nlirrr: Guj 2530 8 A.s.Nn4s:l/;213 mentioned

16. Thus, in the cases of Ravi yashwant Bhoir v. District tlollector Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sant Lat Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group llousing Sociery Limited (2010) 13 SCC 336; Kranti Associates private l,imited 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 re'asons have been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding that reasons aie heart and soul of the order., the position of law that emerges from the decisions 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 thc dccision and said rcasons must be the result of independent re appreciaLion 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 Court of Gujarat in Aggarwal Dgeing and printing Works (second cited supra), it is to be held that the reasons, which are the heart and soul of the order, are obviously missing in fhe impugned order. the eye of law and accordingly, the same is set aside.

79. ln the r esu lt, Appeal Suit is disposed of and the r:ratter is t) I-NA, J A.S.l\o 349 of 2021 withadirecticnt.ladjudicatetheSuiti.e.,o.S.No.54ol.2O23alresh bytakingin1oC()ltjiderationthelactsandthesubmissions1lutforth byboththepi.rtir:l;andpassappropriateorders,inaccordancewithi law,duLyas:;illnirLl3Lhereasonslherefor'Thereshallbenoorderas to costs. Pending misccllaneous applications, if any, shall sLanci ciosed t t To, Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1, The Agent to (lovernment, Bhadradri Kothagudem 2. One C-C tc Sri t( Jagadishwar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC tc Sri L,4ohd Subhan Pasha, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD C rP e::; - VH,T)I, * t\i 51a.r.S OA \1 \et s o o !) i Dt:qi:, HIGH COUTIT DATED: 18t02,t2025 JUDGMEN-T AS.No.349 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SIJIT 6 t