Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
U. Sudheera & Others - Appellants
Versus
C. Yashoda & Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 567 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27761 of 2024)
Decided On : 17-01-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Grant of interim protection – High Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with second appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law as required to be framed under Section 100 CPC – It cannot grant an interim order without framing substantial question of law – Second appeal will be maintainable before High Court only if it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law – If no substantial question of law arises, second appeal could not have been entertained and same ought to have been dismissed as jurisdiction of High Court itself is not yet invoked – In present case, High Court, without formulating substantial questions of law, granted interim relief by directing parties to maintain status quo, till next date of hearing – Said interim order was also subsequently extended – High Court could not have passed interim order without satisfying itself of existence of a substantial question of law, as mandated under Section 100 CPC – High Court has jurisdiction to pass an interim order ex parte, however, it does not empower to grant ad interim relief, without examining parties and formulating substantial question of law involved in second appeal as it is contrary to section 100 CPC – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 10.2, 10.4, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Short question arising for consideration is, whether High Court can pass any ad interim order for a limited period, before framing substantial question(s) of law, while dealing with a second appeal filed under Order XLI r/w Section 100 CPC.
Findings of Court:
Court cannot grant any interim protection to appellant, unless the substantial question of law is framed under Section 100 (4) or as per the Proviso. On the other hand, if High Court is prima facie of the view that substantial question of law involved would not require much time for disposal, the court is bound to frame the substantial question of law at the stage of admission and then order short notice. High Court cannot use its inherent power under Section 151 in violation of express mandates in other provisions of the Code.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The challenge made in this appeal is to the interim order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in the Second Appeal bearing No.518/2023. For the sake of clarity and ease of reference, the order impugned herein is reproduced below:
Therefore, service of respondent No.8 is ‘held sufficient’.
Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take out steps for filing substitute service against the respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7.
It was represented by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri S. Rajendra Prasad that the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property as on today and the respondents are making efforts for interfering with the possession of the appellant.
Considering the representation made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, both parties are directed to maintain status-quo till 25.09.2024.
List the matter on 25.09.2024.”
3. The Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.48 of 2011; Appellant Nos.1 to 3 are the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.5; Appellant Nos.4 to 6 are Defendant Nos.1, 3, and 6; and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are Defendant Nos.2 and 4 in the said suit.
4. The brief facts of the case, as presented by the appellants, are as follows:
The defendants are members of the Gazetted Officers Cooperative House Building Society2[ For short, “the Society”], which was registered in 1966 with the purpose of purchasing and making constructions on lands in Mangalam Village, Tirupati. The Society purchased lands in Survey Nos.2, 10/1, 10/2 and 12 measuring an extent of 5.35 Ac, 0.61Ac, 4 Ac, 5.47 Ac respectively. The suit scheduled property measuring an extent of 0.61 Ac was also purchased by the Society through a sale deed dated 20.03.1986 from one M.Savithramma W/o. Mudduluru Ramakrishnamraju. The original pattadar of the suit scheduled property was one Kannavaram Lokanadham, who sold the same to M.Savithramma by sale deed dated 14.05.1981. While so, the Government issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking to acquire the lands of the Society. Aggrieved by the same, the Society approached the High Court by filing a writ petition bearing No.2357/1987, which was allowed and the acquisition notification was set aside, by order dated 27.07.1987. Thereafter, the Tirupati Urban Development Authority issued Order under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, on 19.06.1996 granting approval of layout in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.2, 10/1, 10/2 of Mangalam Village, Tirupati. Pursuant to the same, plots were developed and were sold to the defendants. As things stood, the Respondent No.1/plaintiff approached the Tahsildar for mutation of the revenue records in respect of the land in Sy.No.10/1 (0.61 Ac) and the same was done ex parte by Order dated 13.04.2010. On the basis of the same, the Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.48 of 2011 before the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for permanent injunction against the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, by judgment dated 05.02.2016. However, the First Appellate Court viz., V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, by judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed in A.S.No.17/2016, allowed the appeal suit and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, after having found that the plaintiff could not have maintained a suit for bare injunction, without seeking declaration of title. Challenging the same, the Respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed a second appeal bearing No. 518 of 2023 before the High Court. After adjourning the matter on three occasions on the ground that the respondents therein were not served, the High Court on the fourth occasion i.e., 20.09.2024, granted interim re
(1) Second Appeal – High Court cannot pass any ad interim order for a limited period, before framing substantial question(s) of law, while dealing with a second appeal filed under Order XLI r/w Secti....
The suit for injunction is not maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud, requiring a declaration of title for proper adjudication.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference by the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, emphasizing that findings of fact will generally n....
The possession is a pure question of fact, and the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse.
(1) Redemption of usufructuary mortgage – Defective counter claim of defendant would not take away statutory right to redeem usufructuary mortgage.(2) First appeal can be filed against decree and not....
Under section 100 CPC, after the 1976 amendment, it is essential for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to reverse the judgment of the first appellate....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
