Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Somarajan, S/O.Raghavan And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Gopalakrishnan, (Died) Legal Representatives And Ors. – Respondents
RSA NO. 100 & 104 OF 2017
Decided On : 04-06-2024
CPC - Civil Procedure - Section 100, Order XLII Rule 1 - O.S. No.313/2006, O.S. No.244/2006 - Ext.A3, Exts.A1, A2, A6 to A8, A13 to A19, Exts.B1, B2 - The court discussed the execution of Ext.A3 sale deed, oral agreement for re-conveyance, and possession of the property as tenants. The legal provisions of Section 100 of CPC were applied to determine the substantial question of law and the requirement for admitting second appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership and possession of a property, with one party seeking permanent prohibitory injunction and the other claiming tenancy rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the execution of Ext.A3 sale deed, oral agreement for re-conveyance, and continued possession as tenants were admitted by the parties. It concluded that the concurrent verdicts of the trial court and the Appellate Court did not require any interference.
Issues: The issues revolved around the execution of the sale deed, oral agreement for re-conveyance, and possession of the property as tenants, leading to the dispute over ownership and possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 100 of CPC to determine the existence of a substantial question of law, emphasizing the requirement for formulating substantial questions of law for admitting second appeals.
Final Decision: The regular second appeals were dismissed without being admitted, as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
JUDGMENT :
R.S.A. No.100 of 2017 has been filed under order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereinafter) challenging the decree and judgment in A.S. No.11 of 2011 dated 15.12.2016 on the files of the Court of the Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara arose from the decree and judgment in O.S. No.313 of 2006 dated 15.11.2010 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. The appellants herein are the defendants and respondents are the plaintiffs in the above suit.
2. R.S.A. No.104 of 2017 has been filed under order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of CPC, challenging the decree and judgment in A.S. No.14 of 2011 dated 15.12.2016 on the files of the Court of the Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara arose from the decree and judgment in O.S. No.244 of 2006 dated 15.11.2010 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants in O.S. No.244 of 2006.
3. In these matters, as per the order passed by my learned predecessor dated 07.02.2017, it was ordered as “Admit”. But, it appears that no substantial question of law formulated for admitting these second appeals. Therefore, the said order stands reviewed and set aside being illegal, as against the mandate of Section 100 read with order XLII of CPC. Accordingly, these appeals are reverted back to the admission stage.
4. Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents in detail, on admission. Perused the relevant documents.
5. I shall refer the parties in these appeals as “Sri. Somarajan and another” and “Sri. Gopalakrishnan and another” for convenience.
6. In this matter, O.S. No.244/2006 is a suit filed by Sri. Somarajan and another seeking the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as against Sri.Gopalakrishnan and another. The contention raised in the suit was that the plaint schedule property along with the building therein was originally belonged to Sri.Somarajan and another on the strength of Sale Deed No.1652/1997 of Kareelakulangara S.R.O. Thereafter, Sri.Somarajan borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-from Sri.Gopalakrishnan agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, in the year 2004. But, Sri.Somarajan failed to repay the amount as agreed. Accordingly, Sri.Gopalakrishnan demanded execution of sale deed in favour of him in respect of the plaint schedule property. In consequence thereof, Sri.Somarajan and another executed Ext.A3 Sale Deed No.114/2005 of Kareelakulangara S.R.O. on 27.01.2005. But, at the time of execution of the sale deed, there was an oral agreement between the parties whereby Sri.Gopalakrishnan and another agreed to reconvey the property on clearing the liability. It is on this premise, Sri.Somarajan and another filed the O.S No.244/2006 seeking the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, when Sri.Gopalakrishnan and another attempted to evict them from the plaint schedule property, restraining forceful eviction.
7. Sri.Goplakrishanan and another filed another suit vide O.S. No.313/2006 contending that Sri.Somarajan and another have been residing the plaint schedule property as tenants, after executing Sale Deed No.114/2005 of Kareelakulangara S.R.O. and they relied on two rent agreements executed on 01.02.2005 and 15.12.2005 to substantiate the said contention.
8. Both parties resisted the respective suits raising contentions similar to that of the contentions raised in the respective suits filed by them.
9. After addressing rival contentions, the trial court recorded evidence and tried the cases together, treating O.S. No.313/2006 as the main case. PWs 1 and 2 examined and Exts.A1 to A19 marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DW1 examined and Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of the defendants.
10. Finally, the trial court dismissed O.S. No.244/2006 and decreed O.S. No.313/2006 as under:
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to formulate substantial questions of law for admitting second appeals under Section 100 of CPC.
The validity and consequences of a sale deed, including the transfer of title and possession, must be raised and challenged within the statutory time limit to be considered valid.
The mandatory requirement to formulate substantial questions of law for admitting and maintaining a second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. and the need for the bar under Order II Rule 2 to be ....
A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC requires the formulation of a substantial question of law; otherwise, it cannot be maintained.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantiating the agreement of sale and the sale consideration, as well as the importance of saleable interest in the property....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a substantial question of law to be involved in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the ....
(1) Appellate court will not reverse finding of fact of trial court where one of possible views were taken by trial court.(2) Agreement to sell – Specific performance of contract – Judgment and decre....
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure must involve substantial questions of law, and unregistered tenancy agreements cannot establish non-evictable rights.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership through valid documentation, and appellate courts uphold concurrent findings unless legally erroneous.
Point of Law : Substantial question of Law - Court’s power under Section 100 of the CPC can be exercised only on a substantial question of law and it is no longer res integra that such substantial qu....
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
