Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court that allowed a Second Appeal filed by the respondent. The appellant, being the first defendant, challenged the High Court's decision on the grounds that it did not formulate any substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's judgment lacked a formulation of any substantial question of law, which is essential for the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is confined to substantial questions of law and cannot interfere with findings of fact. The Court highlighted that the findings of the lower courts regarding the nature of possession were based on proper appreciation of evidence and that mere long possession does not equate to adverse possession without proof of hostile intent. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for disposal in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Requirement of Formulating Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - High Court failed to formulate any substantial question of law before allowing the Second Appeal, which is a mandatory requirement. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the High Court could not be maintained due to this procedural lapse and remitted the matter for proper disposal (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the Second Appeal without formulating a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter for disposal in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second Appeal
- Substantial Question of Law
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Jurisdiction of High Court
- Permissive Possession
- Adverse Possession
