Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tanuku Taluk Village Officers' Association, filed two civil suits against Tanuku Municipality and others: one for permanent injunction (OS No.384 of 1986) and another for recovery of arrears of rent (OS No.226 of 1987). The trial court decreed both suits on 14.08.1996. Additionally, the appellant filed an eviction petition (RCC No.5/1987) which was allowed on 20.01.1997. The respondents appealed, and the first appellate court set aside the trial court's decrees on 21.01.2004. The appellant then filed two second appeals (SA Nos.396 and 414 of 2004) and two civil revision petitions (CRP Nos.2069 and 2073 of 2004) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court admitted the second appeals on three substantial questions of law: whether the lower appellate court was right in holding the plaintiff society defunct without evidence; whether immovable property purchased by a registered society automatically vests with its tenant without a deed of conveyance; and whether a tenant admitting tenancy can claim ownership contrary to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals and revision petitions by answering a different question regarding maintainability of the suit, which was not among the framed questions. The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to comply with Section 100(4) and (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates that a second appeal be decided only on the substantial questions of law framed, and any additional question can be framed only with reasons and after giving the respondent an opportunity to object. Since the High Court dismissed the appeals on an un-framed question without following this procedure, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits, directing that the second appeals and revision petitions be decided afresh in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made earlier.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Questions of Law - Section 100(4) and (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - High Court admitted second appeals on three substantial questions but dismissed them on a different question not framed - Held that disposal of second appeal by answering un-framed questions without compliance of mandatory procedure under proviso to Section 100(5) is not legally sustainable - Matter remanded for fresh disposal (Paras 17-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeals by answering a question not framed under Section 100 CPC
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded to High Court for fresh hearing on merits in accordance with law, keeping in view Section 100 CPC requirements for second appeals; no opinion expressed on merits.
Law Points
- Second appeal must be decided only on substantial questions of law framed under Section 100(4) CPC
- High Court cannot decide on un-framed questions without following proviso to Section 100(5) CPC
