Case Note & Summary
The appellant, as plaintiff, filed a civil suit for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession, and permanent injunction against the respondent. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The respondent then filed a second appeal in the High Court, which admitted the appeal on six substantial questions of law but, while allowing the appeal, did not answer any of those questions. Instead, the High Court discussed other issues and allowed the appeal as if it were a first appeal. The Supreme Court, hearing the plaintiff's appeal, found that the High Court had failed to comply with Section 100(5) CPC, which mandates that a second appeal shall be heard only on the substantial questions of law framed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court must answer each framed question; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh hearing of the second appeal on its merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order or the Supreme Court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Questions of Law - Section 100(4) and (5) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - High Court admitted second appeal on six substantial questions of law but failed to answer any of them on merits and instead discussed other issues - Held that the High Court must confine its inquiry to the questions framed and answer them; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable and warrants remand (Paras 10-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, while allowing a second appeal, must answer the substantial questions of law framed under Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether failure to do so renders the judgment unsustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of High Court set aside. Case remanded to High Court for fresh hearing of second appeal on merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order or this order.
Law Points
- Second appeal must be heard only on substantial questions of law framed under Section 100(4) CPC
- High Court must answer each substantial question of law
- Remand for non-compliance with Section 100(5) CPC
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 3967 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8898 of 2015)
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
Ms. Malini Poduval (for appellant), Mr. Rituraj Biswas (for respondent)
Ranjit Kumar Karmakar @ Dulal Karmakar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession, and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (plaintiff) sought declaration of right, title and interest in suit land, confirmation of possession, and permanent injunction against respondent.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed right, title and interest over suit land and sought to protect his possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court allowed appeal and decreed suit; High Court in second appeal allowed respondent's appeal and restored Trial Court's decree.
Issues
Whether the High Court, while allowing a second appeal, must answer the substantial questions of law framed under Section 100(4) CPC.
Whether failure to answer framed substantial questions of law renders the High Court's judgment unsustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the High Court failed to answer the six substantial questions of law framed and instead discussed other issues.
Respondent's arguments not detailed in judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 100(5) CPC, a second appeal shall be heard only on the substantial questions of law framed under Section 100(4). The High Court must answer each framed question; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable and warrants remand.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 100 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in express terms, provides that the second appeal shall be heard only on the substantial question(s) of law framed by the High Court under Section 100 (4) of the Code.
Since the High Court failed to answer the six questions (set out in Para 2 of impugned order) either way on their respective merits and yet proceeded to allow the second appeal, such order, in our view, is not legally sustainable and has to be set aside.
Procedural History
Appellant filed civil suit (T.S. No. 103/2004) in Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura. Trial Court dismissed suit on 05.04.2006. Appellant filed first appeal (T.A. No. 34/2006) before Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, which allowed appeal on 24.04.2007. Respondent filed second appeal (R.S.A. No. 42/2007) in High Court of Tripura, which allowed appeal on 24.09.2014. Appellant filed SLP in Supreme Court, which was converted to Civil Appeal No. 3967/2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100(4), Section 100(5)
