important point
Merely because no substantial question of law has been formulated by the High Court that does not mean that the judgment of the High Court automatically becomes a nullity or that it must necessarily be set aside on that ground alone.

ORDER

1.These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 17.8.2000 in Second Appeal Nos. 1601-04/1986.

2.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.The respondent in these appeals, Pandurangan filed a suit being Original Suit No. 807 of 1982 (O.S. No. 135 of 1982 at Cuddalore) which was decreed on 20.8.1984 by the trial court. In that suit the plaintiff alleged that he is the owner of the property in question, and he prayed for declaration of his title and for a decree of possession against the defendant.

4.Against the judgment and decree of the trial court the appellant herein filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuddalore on 30.12.1985. The First Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, holding that the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession over the property in dispute.

5.Against the aforesaid decision the plaintiff (respondent herein), filed a second appeal which was allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2000.

6.The High Court relying on several decisions held that the ingredients of adverse possession (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario vide P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy1, AIR 1957 SC 314, Suraj Mal and Another v. Ram Singh and Others2, AIR 1986 SC 1889, Achal Reddi v. Ramakrishna Reddiar and Others3, AIR 1990 SC 553, etc.) have not been satisfied by the defendant and hence the plaintiff’s suit deserves to be decreed, since admittedly the plaintiff was the owner of the property in dispute.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no substantial question of law was framed by the High Court as required by Section 100 (4) C.P.C. Hence he submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.

8.It is true that in this case no substantial question of law has been formulated by the High Court. However, in our opinion, merely because no substantial question of law has been formulated by the High Court that does not mean that the judgment of the High Court automatically becomes a nullity or that it must necessarily be set aside by this Court on that ground alone. The appellant before us must also show prejudice to him on this account.

9.Learned counsel for the appellant has shown us several decisions of this Court where the judgments of the High Court in Second Appeal were set aside on the ground that no substantial question of law had been framed by the High Court as required by Second 100 (4) C.P.C. In our opinion these decisions cannot be said to have laid down any absolute proposition of law that whenever a second appeal is decided by the High Court without formulating a substantial question of law that judgment must necessarily be set aside. In our opinion, the judgment of the High Court should not be set aside on this ground alone if no prejudice had been caused to the appellant before us on this account.

10.In the present case both the parties knew that the question involved was whether the defendant (appellant) in this case had been able to prove his title by adverse possession. Hence the non-framing of a substantial question of law in this case did not prejudice the appellant at all before the High Court.

11.By a series of decisions of this Court it has been settled that omission to frame an issue as required under Order XIV Rule 1 C.P.C. would not vitiate the trial in a suit where the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led evidence in support of their respective contentions and to refute the contentions of the other side vide Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao4, AIR 1963 SC 884.

12.In Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad5, AIR 2003 SC 2985 it was held by this Court that even if no specific issue has been framed but if the parties were aware of that issue and have led evidence on it, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of the trial court. A simi