1. Title suit for possession of agricultural land — dismissal on grounds of limitation and adverse possession — second appeal before High Court. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1327
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : N.Santosh Hegde
Sayamma
Versus
Basamma
Case No. : 4526 of 2000
Date of Decision : 8/11/00
In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court must frame a substantial question of law before setting aside the findings of the lower courts; failure to do so renders the judgment unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Framing of substantial question of law - High Court set aside findings of trial court and appellate court without framing any substantial question of law - Such an order is unsustainable under law. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A title suit for possession of agricultural land was filed. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by time and the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession. This finding was confirmed by the appellate court. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and decreed the suit.
Findings of Court:
The High Court failed to frame a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Without considering such a question, the High Court set aside the judgments of two lower courts, which is unsustainable under law. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the findings recorded by the courts below without framing any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. (Para 3)
Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court is required to frame a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code before it can set aside the findings of the lower courts. (Para 4)
Result: Appeal succeeds; impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside lower court findings without framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court set aside judgments of two lower courts without framing a substantial question of law, which is unsustainable under the law. (Para 4 )
4. In a second appeal, the High Court must frame a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside lower court findings. (Para 4 )
5. High Court judgment set aside and matter remitted for reconsideration after framing a substantial question of law, if any. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Is it mandatory for a High Court to frame a substantial question of law when deciding a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code?
Yes. The High Court is required to frame a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code before it can set aside the findings recorded by the courts below. (Para 4 )
A.P.MISRA, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(3) THE only question which arises for our consideration is, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the findings recorded by the courts below without framing any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code
(4) THE respondent filed a title suit for possession of an agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the suit was barred by time and the defendant-petitioner had perfected title by adverse possession. This was confirmed by the appellate court. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment of the courts below and decreed the suit of the respondent. By looking to the impugned order of the High Court, we find there is no substantial question of law framed as required under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and without considering the same, the High Court has set aside the judgment of two courts below, which in our opinion, without entering into the merits of the decision in second appeal, is unsustainable under law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and remitted back to the High Court to reconsider after framing the substantial question of law if one arises and dispose of it in accordance with law and also to consider the judgment of this Court in Basappa v. Puttappa decided on 14/7/2000
(5) THE present appeal, accordingly, succeeds and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Costs on the parties.
