Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 275
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Tanuku Taluk Village Officers' Association – Appellant(s)
Versus
Tanuku Municipality And Ors. & Etc. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 2918-2921 of 2019 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 35578-35581 of 2015)
Decided on : 12-03-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. K.Raghavacharyulu,Adv. Mr. Kailash Pandey,Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Singh,Adv. Ms. Nupur Sharma,Adv. Mr. J.K.Mishra,Adv. For Shri. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
(a) Disposal of second appeal by High Court by answering question(s) which was/were not framed either at the time of admission of second appeal or framed without ensuring compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed in proviso to Section 100 (5) of CPC is not legally sustainable.
(b) If at the time of hearing, High Court considers that second appeal involves any other substantial question(s) of law, it has jurisdiction to frame such question(s) but only by assigning reasons.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Disposal of – Substantial question of law – High Court though admitted second appeals on three substantial questions of law but instead of answering these questions, dismissed appeals by answering the question which was not framed – High Court failed to see that second appeal could be decided only on question(s) framed under Section 100 (4) of CPC – However, if at the time of hearing, High Court considers that second appeal involves any other substantial question(s) of law, it has jurisdiction to frame such question(s) but only by assigning reasons. (Paras 17 to 19)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Disposal of – Substantial question of law – Disposal of second appeal by High Court by answering question(s) which was/were not framed either at the time of admission of second appeal or framed without ensuring compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed in proviso to Section 100 (5) of CPC is not legally sustainable – Question on which High Court dismissed appeals was in relation to maintainability of suit and this question was not a part of three questions framed and nor High Court framed such question by taking recourse to powers under Section 100(5) proviso of CPC – Impugned order set aside and appeals remanded to High Court for their hearing afresh on merits and in accordance with law. (Paras 20 to 22)
Facts of Case:
Appellant is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in civil suits filed by appellant against respondents in relation to suit land out of which these appeals arise. Question, which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether High Court was justified in dismissing plaintiff's Second Appeals.
Findings of Court:
Though High Court framed three substantial questions but did not answer any of them on their respective merit either way. Instead High Court dismissed second appeals on question which it had not framed. Question on which High Court dismissed appeals was in relation to the maintainability of suit and this question was not a part of three questions framed and nor High Court framed such question by taking recourse to powers under Section 100(5) proviso of CPC.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Second Appeal Nos. 396 of 2004 and 414 of 2004 and C.R.P. Nos. 2069 of 2004 and 2073 of 2004, whereby the High Court dismissed the said appeals and Revision Petitions filed by the appellant herein.
3. A few facts need mention in brief infra for the disposal of these appeals.
4. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the civil suits filed by the appellant against the respondents in relation to the suit land out of which these appeals arise.
5. The appellant filed two civil suits against the respondents in relation to the suit land. One was for grant of permanent injunction (OS No. 384 of 1986) and the other was for recovery of arrears of rent (OS No. 226 of 1987). Both the civil suits were filed in the Court of 1st Additional District Munsif, Tanuku.
6. By Judgment/decree dated 14.08.1996, the Additional District Munsif decreed both the civil suits.
7. The plaintiff also filed a suit bearing RCC No. 5/1987 before the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Tanuku for eviction of defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein). By order dated 20.01.1997, the Rent Controller passed a decree and order in favour of the plaintiff and directed defendant No. 1 to handover the suit land to the plaintiff.
8. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application bearing I.A. No.268 of 1997 in R.C.C. No. 5 of 1987 before the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Tanuku for releasing of cheque of Rs. 42,400/-deposited by respondent No. 1 towards the rent and arrears of the suit land. By order dated 14.05.1997, the Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff.
9. The plaintiff felt aggrieved by the said order and filed C.M.A. No. 13 of 1997 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Tanuku. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.1997 of the Rent Controller(Principal District Munsif), defendant No. 1 filed C.M.A. No. 8 of 1997 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Tanuku.
10. The Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku took up both the matters together. Vide order dated 21.01.2004, the Senior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 and set aside the order dated 20.01.1997 passed by the Rent Controller(Principal District Munsif) and dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff by confirming the order dated 14.05.1997.
11. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.1996 of the Additional District Munsif, defendant No. 1 filed appeals being A.S. Nos. 69 & 70/1996 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku. Vide order dated 21.01.2004, the Senior Civil Judge allowed the appeals and set aside the order dated 14.08.1996 passed by the Additional District Munsif.
12. The appellant (plaintiff) felt aggrieved by both the orders of the First Appellate Court dated 21.01.2014 and filed two Second Appeals being S.A. Nos. 396 & 414 of 2004 and C.R.P. Nos. 2069 and 2073 of 2004 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
13. The High Court admitted the Second Appeals on the following three substantial questions of law.
"a) Whether the lower appellate court is right in holding that plaintiff society became defunct without there being any evidence to that effect ?
b) Whether the immovable property purchased by a registered society under registered sale deeds shall automatically vests with its admitted tenant without there being any deed of conveyance ?
c) Whether a tenant while admitting that it was only a tenant inducted into possession for a rent can claim ownership over the very same property contrary to the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act ?"
14. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeals as well as revision petitions, which has given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave in this Court by the plaintiff.
15. So, the short ques
