SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 342

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD & PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.
Arsad Sk. & Another – Appellant
Versus
Bani Prosanna Kundu & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4805 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12773 of 2009)
Decided On : 23-04-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Substantial question of law can be even at the time of argument stage.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100(5), Proviso – Second appeal – No substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission – Counsel for the parties also not pointing out the lapse – High Court framing substantial question of law at a later stage but before hearing and answering it – Appellants given opportunity to answer the same – No prejudice to appellants – No infirmity. (Para 7,

       (2005) 10 SCC 38; (2007) 15 SCC 157 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a suit in the Court of First Munsif, District Malda, for a permanent injunction against the appellants by declaring the title over 27 decimals of land in R.S. Plot No.95/425 situated in Mouza Mahesh Mati, P.S. Engrej Bazar in District Malda, West Bengal.

       The Munsif Court, Malda, dismissed the said suit with the finding that the plaintiffs did not have any right, title or interest in the schedule property.

       The respondents preferred first appeal before the District Judge, Malda, wherein they specifically pleaded that they owned and possessed the suit land within the boundary through purchase and gifts. Simultaneously, further claimed the title to the whole area by adverse possession. The Assistant District Judge, Malda dismissed the First Appeal and upheld the findings of the Trial Court.

       The respondent preferred a second appeal before the Calcutta High Court stating that in a dispute in a conveyance deed between the area and description of boundary, the description of boundary would prevail and also pointed out that the Court below had failed to consider the question of adverse possession.

       The High Court set aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and allowed the second appeal filed by the respondents, holding that where there is a dispute in a conveyance deed between the area and the description of the boundary, the description of the boundary shall prevail.

       Finding of the Court:

       Substantial question of law can be formulated at the initial stage and in some exceptional cases, at a later point of time, even at the time of argument stage.

       

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Substantial question of law can be formulated at the initial stage or, in exceptional cases, at a later stage including the argument stage (!) (!) . - If a substantial question of law is formulated at a later stage, the opposite party must be given notice and a fair opportunity to meet the point (!) (!) . - A judgment by the High Court in a second appeal should not be set aside solely for non-compliance with the timing of framing the substantial question of law, unless prejudice to the appellants is shown (!) .

What is the scope for formulating a substantial question of law at the argument stage in a second appeal under Section 100(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?


JUDGMENT

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 13, 2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Second Appeal No.490 of 1993 by which the High Court while allowing the second appeal filed by the respondents herein, set aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The facts revealed in this case are that respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed a suit in the Court of First Munsif, District Malda, praying, inter alia, for a permanent injunction against the defendants (who are appellants herein) by declaring the title over 27 decimals of land in R.S. Plot No.95/425 situated in Mouza Mahesh Mati, P.S. Engrej Bazar in District Malda, West Bengal. The Munsif Court, Malda, by its judgment and order dated May 15, 1989 dismissed the said suit with the finding that the plaintiffs did not have any right, title or interest in the schedule property. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the respondents-plaintiffs preferred first appeal, being O.C. Appeal No. 25 of 1989, before the District Judge, Malda, wherein they specifically pleaded that they owned and possessed the suit land within the boundary through purchase and gifts. Simultaneously, further claimed the title to the whole area by adverse possession. On July 12,1991, the Assistant District Judge, Malda dismissed the First Appeal and upheld the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the respondents-plaintiffs preferred a second appeal before the Calcutta High Court stating, inter alia, that in a dispute in a conveyance deed between the area and description of boundary, the description of boundary would prevail and also pointed out that the Court below had failed to consider the question of adverse possession.

4. The High Court by its judgment and order dated March 13, 2008 set aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and allowed the second appeal filed by the respondents, holding that where there is a dispute in a conveyance deed between the area and the description of the boundary, the description of the boundary shall prevail. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellants have come up before this Court by filing this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in second appeal suffers from patent errors, both in law and in fact. It was submitted that the High Court did not frame the substantial question of law at the time of admission of the second appeal but formulated a question only in the impugned judgment after the arguments had been concluded.

6. Per contra, the case of the respondents is based on the premise that under the proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), nothing shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question and the High Court has correctly proceeded to frame the question of law set out in the impugned judgment. It is further submitted that the question of law as set out by the High Court in the impugned judgment is the appropriate and substantial question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of this case and that the appeal should be dismissed as the Second Appellate Court has merely set right the apparent perversity in the judgments of the lower courts. It is submitted that the High Court has correctly decided the matter on the basis of the question of law framed in the impugned judgment by holding, inter alia, that where there is a dispute between the area of the transferred land indicated in the deed and the boundaries mentioned in the deed, boundaries mentioned in the conveyance deed shall prevail.

7. In the present case, it appe







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top