Factual Background and Procedural History
This professional analysis is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No(s). 12048-12049 of 2018, Singamasetty Bhagavath Guptha & Anr. versus Allam Karibasappa (D) by LRS./Allam Doddabasappa (D) by LRS. & Ors., dated September 25, 2025.
The dispute originated from a contested transfer of a one-anna share in the partnership firm M/s Gavisiddheshwara & Co.. The original applicant (Karibasappa) claimed to have purchased this share from the appellant (Guptha) via an alleged offer and acceptance correspondence in March 1975.
The legal proceedings unfolded as follows:
- The appellant and his mother were declared insolvent by the District Court at Bellary on June 25, 1977, and an Official Receiver was appointed.
- The applicant filed I.A. No. XV under Sections 4 and 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (PIA), seeking direction to the Receiver to execute a transfer deed based on the alleged pre-insolvency contract.
- The District Court initially allowed this application on January 4, 1983, leading to the execution of a registered transfer deed by the Official Receiver on March 11, 1983.
- Subsequently, the appellant’s insolvency adjudication was annulled by the District Court on April 20, 1996, under Section 35 of the Act, following the discharge of most liabilities.
- Following a remand order from the High Court, the District Court, on February 16, 2004, conducted a fresh adjudication. It meticulously analyzed the evidence and found that the documents forming the basis of the transfer (Exs. P.4 and P.6, the alleged offer and acceptance) were “fabricated documents” and “got up”. Consequently, the District Court dismissed the transfer application and ordered the cancellation of the 1983 sale deed.
- The High Court, in the impugned judgment, reversed the District Court’s factual findings, holding that the sale deed dated 11.03.1983 was “saved” under Section 37(1) of the PIA, notwithstanding the annulment of insolvency or the nullification of the underlying order. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court in the present civil appeal.
Identification of Legal Issues
The Supreme Court addressed two core issues in this appeal:
- Scope and Applicability of Section 37, PIA: Whether a sale or disposition executed by an Official Receiver during insolvency is protected under the saving clause of Section 37(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act if the underlying transaction or court order is later found to be based on fabricated documents and subsequently set aside or annulled.
- Standards for Reversal of Facts by the Appellate Court (Order XLI Rule 31, CPC): Whether the High Court, acting as the first appellate court, committed a jurisdictional error by reversing the detailed factual findings of the Trial Court (District Court) without adequately reappreciating the evidence and without providing specific, independent reasons, merely terming the Trial Court’s findings as based on “surmises and conjectures”.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Respondents (Purchaser/Original Applicant):
- Protection under Section 37: The core argument was that the transfer by the Receiver was an “act theretofore done by the Court or receiver” and must be saved under Section 37(1) of the PIA. They contended that the effect of annulling the adjudication is only to restore property to the debtor retrospectively, but it does not wipe out sales and dispositions that were duly made by the Court or Receiver during the insolvency period.
- Reliance on Precedent: They relied heavily on the principles laid down in Babu Ram alias Durga Prasad v. Indra Pal Singh and Arora Enterprises Ltd. v. Indubhushan Obhan to argue that the sale deed’s validity remained unimpaired by the subsequent annulment.
For the Appellants (Debtor):
- Transaction Not “Duly Made”: The sale deed was not “duly made” because the District Court, on remand, found the entire foundation of the transaction—the offer (Ex.P.4) and acceptance (Ex.P.6)—to be “fabricated” and “got up”. A transfer based on fraudulent or non-existent documents cannot be shielded under the saving clause.
- Lack of Finality: The order sanctioning the sale (04.01.1983) was subsequently set aside and remanded by the High Court, meaning the transfer deed had “no legs to stand” and the transaction had not attained the requisite finality for Section 37 protection.
- Improper Appellate Interference: They argued the High Court acted erroneously by summarily reversing the Trial Court’s detailed factual analysis without following the mandatory judicial discipline for reversing findings of fact.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
A. The Conditionality of the Section 37 Saving Clause (PIA)
The Supreme Court decisively clarified the scope of Section 37 of the PIA. It held that the protection offered by the saving clause is conditional upon the transaction being “duly made”.
- The Court found that the High Court had erred in assuming the 1983 transfer deed was final and beyond challenge.
- A transfer that is based on fabricated documents or on an order which is later annulled cannot be treated as “duly made” and therefore cannot be shielded under the saving clause.
- The Court emphasized that for Section 37 to operate, there must be a finality of transactions and the conclusion of sales or dispositions. Since the underlying order of transfer was set aside on appeal and remanded, the subsequent transfer deed executed by the Receiver lost its validity.
B. The Doctrine of Appellate Review (CPC)
The Court relied on its significant judgment in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) to restore judicial discipline regarding the review of factual findings. The Court highlighted the important duty of the first appellate court.
- Judicial Precepts: While the first appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse a finding of fact, it must: (i) accord proper weight to the Trial Court’s findings, especially when they rely on the credibility of witnesses or extensive documentary analysis , and (ii) come into “close quarters with the reasoning” of the Trial Court and then assign its own specific reasons for reversing the finding.
- Error of Jurisdiction: The Court concluded that the High Court failed to discharge this duty, committing a “serious error” and a “jurisdictional error”. The High Court had only cursorily rejected the District Court’s detailed finding of fabrication (Exs.P4 to P7) as based on “surmises and conjectures” without any independent analysis of the evidence.
Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred both in its interpretation of the saving clause under the Provincial Insolvency Act and in its reversal of the District Court’s factual findings.
The final decision:
- The Civil Appeals (12048-12049 of 2018) were Allowed.
- The High Court’s reversing judgment was set aside.
- The detailed judgment of the Additional District Judge (Trial Court) dated 16.02.2004, which dismissed the application for transfer and directed cancellation of the sale deed executed by the Official Receiver, was restored.
The judgment lays down two key legal principles: (1) The protection afforded by Section 37 of the PIA is not absolute and only extends to transactions that are “duly made”—meaning they are validly concluded and final; and (2) An appellate court must adhere to the strict principles of judicial review, providing explicit, detailed reasoning when reversing the findings of fact of a trial court.
FAQs:
1. What does the “annulment of insolvency” mean?
The annulment of insolvency, often done under Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, means the court is satisfied that the debtor’s liabilities have been paid or arrangements have been made for payment. The legal effect is generally to wipe out the insolvency retrospectively, and the property of the debtor reverts to them, subject to any conditions the court may impose.
2. What happens to property sold during insolvency if the adjudication is annulled later?
Property sold by the Official Receiver or the court during the insolvency period is generally protected by Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, even if the insolvency is later annulled. However, this protection is not automatic. The transaction must have been “duly made”—meaning it must be lawful, complete, and based on a valid, final order. If the sale was based on fabricated documents or a non-final order, it can be set aside.
3. What does “duly made” mean in the context of an insolvency sale?
As clarified in this judgment, a transaction is “duly made” only if it is validly and conclusively carried out. This means the sale must be procedurally correct, legally sound, and, crucially, not based on any fraudulent or “got up” documents. A non-final transaction lacks the requisite finality to be saved.
4. Can an appellate court overturn a trial court’s factual findings easily?
No. An appellate court must exercise caution when reversing a trial court’s findings of fact, especially when those findings are based on a detailed analysis of oral and documentary evidence. The reversal is only permissible if the trial court’s finding is based on a material irregularity, inadmissible evidence, or relies on pure speculation or “surmises and conjectures.”
5. What is the duty of the first appellate court when reversing a finding of fact?
The first appellate court has a clear judicial duty: when it decides to reverse a finding of fact, it must first engage deeply with the reasons assigned by the trial court. It must then provide its own specific, detailed, and reasoned analysis supported by evidence for arriving at a different conclusion. It cannot simply reject the trial court’s findings without proper judicial scrutiny.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.