judgment

Tarun Chatterjee, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.At the time of issuing notice to the special leave petition, this Court confined notice as to why the second appeal should not be remitted to the High Court for failure to formulate and decide the substantial question of law as required by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3.A suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration that Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was their absolute property, and for a perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents from obtaining possession of the said item. The suit was dismissed, which was affirmed in appeal. However, by the impugned judgment of the High Court passed in second appeal, the suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, a special leave petition has been filed in respect of which leave has already been granted.

4.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after examining the judgment of the High Court passed in the second appeal, we are of the view that the judgment in second appeal of the High Court is liable to be set aside on a very short question. It is now well settled by cat