Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar, JJ
Santosh Hazari – Appellant
Versus
Purshottam Tiwari – Respondent
Appeal (civil) 1117 of 2001
0SHIV SAGAR TIWARI
The formulation of a substantial question of law is a mandatory prerequisite for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Formulation of substantial question of law - The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal; and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court. The existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Definition of Substantial Question of Law - A question of law to be substantial must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. The proper test is whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. (Paras 16 and 17)
(C) First Appellate Court - Duty and Reasoning - The judgment of the appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind, and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising. While reversing a finding of fact, the appellate Court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial Court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. (Paras 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land (Khasra No.41/1) in Village Patharia, alleging encroachment by the defendant. The trial court decreed the suit, rejecting the defendant's plea of adverse possession. However, the first appellate court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit. The High Court subsequently dismissed the second appeal in limine, stating that the matter stood concluded by findings of fact and no substantial question of law arose.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the first appellate court did not discharge its duty as a court of first appeal in reversing the trial court's findings without sufficient reason. Furthermore, the High Court failed to discharge its obligation under Section 100(3) of the Code by not formulating a substantial question of law before dismissing the second appeal.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law, and whether the first appellate court's reversal of the trial court's finding on adverse possession was legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the formulation of a substantial question of law is a mandatory condition precedent for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. A substantial question of law is one that is debatable and has a material bearing on the rights of the parties. Additionally, the first appellate court must provide detailed reasoning when reversing the findings of a trial court, especially those based on oral evidence.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
appeals
-
second appeal
- substantial question of law
-
first appeal
- reversal of findings
-
second appeal
-
limitation
- adverse possession
-
appeals
-
property law
- title and possession
JUDGMENT:
R.C. Lahoti, J.
Leave granted.
On 4.3.1983, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property described as Khasra No.41/1 area 1.09 acres (0.441 hectares) situated in Village Patharia, District Damoh. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had encroached upon a portion of the suit property over 110x80 ft. area of land out of the suit property on 20.8.1981. The defendant in his written statement denied all material averments and in addition submitted that the defendant has been in possession of the suit property since 1960-61. Suit of the plaintiff was alleged to have been barred by limitation in view of the same having been filed more than 12 years after the date of dispossession of the plaintiff. A plea of the defendant having acquired title by adverse possession was also raised in the written statement.
The trial Court, on an evaluation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, found that ownership in the suit property vested in the plaintiff and the defendant had forcibly occupied the disputed area of 110x80 ft. sometime in the year 1980-81. The defendant's plea of adverse possession was negatived and the suit filed by the plaintiff was held to have been filed within the period of limitation. On these findings the suit was decreed in its entirety.
The defendant preferred an appeal. The learned additional District Judge held that in so far as ownership over the suit land is concerned, the same vested in the plaintiff. However, he found that the possession of the land was given to the plaintiff by the State Government on 6.11.68 but the plaintiff has not shown to have taken any steps for dispossessing the defendant and the plea raised by the plaintiff of the defendant having forcibly occupied the land in dispute on 20.8.1981 did not appear to be tenable. On these findings the appeal was allowed and in reversal of the judgment and decree of the trial Court the suit was directed to be dismissed.
The plaintiff preferred a second appeal which has been dismissed in limine by the High Court passing a brief order that the matter stood concluded by findings of fact and no substantial question of law arose for determination. The aggrieved plaintiff has filed this appeal by special leave.
On 4.5.1999 this Court directed a notice to be issued to the defendant-respondent on the limited question as to why the matter should not be remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeal after framing the question of law.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court. We have also perused the application dated 12.1.2001 filed in this Court on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant setting out the substantial questions of law which in his submission arose in the case and on which the High Court ought to have heard the appeal.
What is a substantial question of law involved in the case? Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, the Code, for short) as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 (104 of 1976) w.e.f. 1.2.1977 reads as under:-
100. Second Appeal.
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.
(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
(5) The appeal
