Supreme Court rules remand not required if appellate court can decide issue from existing evidence

The case concerns a dispute over the validity of a 1982 sale deed for a specific property (Item No. 5) and whether the High Court was legally justified in remanding the matter to the Trial Court for further evidence and issue framing, rather than deciding it based on the existing record.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Shivappa (Defendant No. 2 in the original suit); Respondents: Shantavva and others (Plaintiffs in the original suit); Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.

What the court decided

• The Court considered the validity of the High Court's order remanding the matter to the Trial Court.
• The Court cited precedents (Ashwini Kumar K. Patel, P. Purushottam Reddy, Zarif Ahmad) stating that appellate courts should generally decide cases on the available record rather than remanding them, as remand causes delay and prejudice.
• The Court noted that the Trial Court had already recorded evidence and findings on the key issues, including possession and limitation.
• The Court observed that the High Court, as the court of first appeal, had the jurisdiction to decide the issues of fact and law itself.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'NON-REPORTABLE'.
• The Court emphasized that remand is not a matter of course and should be avoided if the appellate court can decide the issue based on already adduced evidence.
• The dispute involves a sale deed executed in 1982, challenged in 2015, raising issues of limitation and whether the deed was a sham transaction.