Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which allowed a Second Appeal without formulating any substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the appeal was improperly allowed due to this procedural lapse. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had failed to formulate a substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite for entertaining a Second Appeal. The Court referred to previous judgments that established the necessity of formulating such questions and reiterated that the High Court's jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law, not pure questions of fact. The Court also addressed the issue of permissive possession versus adverse possession, stating that mere long possession does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession without evidence of hostile intent. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for proper 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 must formulate a substantial question of law before allowing a second appeal; failure to do so renders the judgment unsustainable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not formulate any substantial question of law, thus the appeal was improperly allowed. (Paras 2-4) B) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of High Court - Confined to Substantial Questions of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - High Court's jurisdiction is limited to appeals involving substantial questions of law and does not extend to pure questions of fact. The Court reiterated that the High Court must adhere to the procedural requirements of Section 100 CPC. (Paras 5-6) C) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Requirement of Proving Hostile Animus - Not applicable - Mere long possession does not equate to adverse possession if initially permissive. The Court emphasized that the defendant must prove hostile possession to claim adverse possession, which was not established in this case. (Paras 7-8)
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 set aside the judgment of the Gujarat 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
- High Court jurisdiction
- Permissive possession
- Adverse possession
