ORDER

1. Aggrieved against the order of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 182 of 1986, the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter called "the appellant") has a filed the present appeal by grant of special leave.

2. The High Court by the impugned judgment has accepted the appeal filed by the defendant-respondents (hereinafter called "the respondents") and set aside the findings recorded by the courts below and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed:

"Whether the lower appellate court is right in holding that Section 60 of the Easements Act will not apply to the case when construction with hook stones of permanent character had been put up on the suit wall?"

3. Although this question of law had been framed by the High Court but without referring to or noticing the same, the High Court, while disposing of c the appeal on reappreciation of evidence, has set aside the findings recorded by the courts below.

4. In R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi1, M.S. V Raja v. Seeni Thevar2, R. VE. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple3, Mohd. Mohd. Ali v. Jagadish Kalita4 and Thiagarajan v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil5 this Court has held that the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction d under Section 100 CPC to entertain the second appeal only on a substantial question of law framed at the time of admission or at a subsequent stage, and while deciding the same confine itself to the question(s) of law framed.

5. Since the High Court has failed to take notice of the question of law framed at the time of admission of the second appeal and decided the same as if it was hearing the first appeal, the judgment under appeal is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the case is remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The High Court would be at liberty to either decide the appeal on the question of law already framed or reframe the question(s) of law if the same arise from the findings recorded by the courts below.

6. Since the present proceedings pertain to a suit instituted in the year 1979, we would request the High Court to take up the appeal on priority basis and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible.

7. The Registry is directed to transmit the record of this case to the High Court forthwith.

8. The appeal is allowed accordingly.