Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi against a judgment of the Patna High Court which had restored the trial court's decree in favor of the original plaintiff's heirs regarding title over a suit land. The original plaintiff had sought a declaration of title against the appellant, who was the defendant in the suit. The trial court had initially decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision. The respondents then filed a second appeal in the Patna High Court, which restored the trial court's decree without formulating a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant contended that the High Court's judgment was unsustainable due to this procedural oversight. The respondents argued that the question of law was self-evident and that the High Court's well-reasoned judgment should not be set aside on a technicality. The Supreme Court analyzed the requirements of Section 100 CPC, noting that the High Court must formulate substantial questions of law before hearing second appeals. The court cited precedents emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is confined to substantial questions of law and cannot interfere with findings of fact. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not adhered to the procedural requirements and thus set aside the impugned judgment, remitting the matter back to the High Court for proper disposal in accordance with law. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Requirement of Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - High Court's failure to formulate a substantial question of law before reversing the First Appellate Court's decision rendered the judgment unsustainable. The court emphasized that the High Court must adhere to the procedural requirements of Section 100 CPC, which mandates the formulation of substantial questions of law for hearing second appeals. Held that the impugned judgment could not be maintained due to this procedural lapse (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in not formulating a substantial question of law before reversing the First Appellate Court's judgment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter for disposal in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Substantial question of law
- Second appeal
- Jurisdiction of High Court
- Permissive possession
- Adverse possession
