Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which allowed a Second Appeal filed by the defendant while rejecting the plaintiff's application for review. The plaintiff contended that the Second Appeal was permitted without the formulation of a substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not formulate any substantial question of law nor did it address any such question in its judgment. The Court referred to previous judgments, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law and does not extend to pure questions of fact. The Court highlighted that the findings of fact by the lower courts were based on proper evidence and that the defendant's possession was permissive, requiring him to prove adverse possession with cogent evidence. The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for the formulation of substantial questions of law, stating that if such questions existed, the appeal should be dismissed. The appeals were allowed without any orders as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Formulation of Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court must formulate a substantial question of law before allowing a second appeal, as per the requirements of Section 100 CPC. The absence of such formulation in the impugned judgment rendered it unsustainable, necessitating the remittance of the matter back to the High Court for proper consideration. Held that the High Court's failure to adhere to this procedural requirement invalidated its judgment (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the Second Appeal without formulating a substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to the High Court for the formulation of substantial questions of law, stating that if such questions existed, the appeal should be dismissed. No orders were made as to costs.
Law Points
- Second Appeal
- Substantial Question of Law
- Jurisdiction of High Court
- Permissive Possession
- Adverse Possession
