Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. SABHARWAL, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.
UMAR CHAND BUBAL - APPELLANT
VERSUS
AMBA PRASAD - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6943 OF 2004,
DECIDED ON OCTOBER 25, 2004
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 58(c) - Substantial question of law - Question whether the deed in question was a sale deed or a mortgage deed by conditional sale would be a substantial question of law requiring determination by the High Court- High Court erred in dismissing the appeal, holding that there was no substantial question of law involved- Order of the High Court set aside and matter remitted to decide the appeal on merit. [Para 2]
ORDER
1. LEAVE GRANTED.
2. SECOND APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED THEREIN. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DEED DATED 13-3-1984 WAS A SALE DEED OR A MORTGAGE DEED BY CONDITIONAL SALE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW REQUIRING DETERMINATION BY THE HIGH COURT. IN THIS VIEW, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND REMAND SECOND APPEAL NO. 1023 OF 2002 FOR FRESH DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT TO CONSIDER THE AFORESAID AND ANY OTHER QUESTION OF LAW WHICH THE HIGH COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO FRAME. THE HIGH COURT WOULD DO WELL TO DECIDE THE SAID APPEAL EXPEDITIOUSLY, PREFERABLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS.
3. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.
4. STATUS QUO REGARDING POSSESSION SHALL BE MAINTAINED TILL THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL BY THE HIGH COURT.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
