Ramavilasom Grandhasala & Ors. Vs. N.S.S. Karayogam
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3269 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14110 of 1999)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.98 of the Kerala High Court in S.A.No. 1155 of 1989)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14110 of 1999)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.98 of the Kerala High Court in S.A.No. 1155 of 1989)
Petitioner: Ramavilasom Grandhasala & Ors.
Respondent: N.S.S. Karayogam
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3269 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14110 of 1999)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.98 of the Kerala High Court in S.A.No. 1155 of 1989)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14110 of 1999)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.98 of the Kerala High Court in S.A.No. 1155 of 1989)
Judges: V.N. KHARE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 05, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. S.V. Rajan, Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar, Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Advocate with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 100(4) – Second appeal – No substantial question of law formulated – Decision without question of law being formulated. Held, was improper. Matter remitted back for decision as per law.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and possession. The said suit was dismissed. An appeal against the said decree was also dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff-respond-ent filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court without formulating any substantial question of law, as required under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure allowed the second appeal and decreed the suit. It is against the said judgment the defendant-appellant is in appeal. This Court on more than one occasion has held that under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court is re-quired to frame substantial question of law and only then it acquires jurisdiction to decide a second appeal on merits. In this case the High Court without framing any substantial question of law has allowed the appeal and this in itself is a sufficient ground to set aside the judgment under appeal. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment under appeal and send the matter back to the High Court to decide the appeal only after framing substan-tial question of law which may arise in the case.
3. The appeal is allowed. The High Court may decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and possession. The said suit was dismissed. An appeal against the said decree was also dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff-respond-ent filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court without formulating any substantial question of law, as required under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure allowed the second appeal and decreed the suit. It is against the said judgment the defendant-appellant is in appeal. This Court on more than one occasion has held that under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court is re-quired to frame substantial question of law and only then it acquires jurisdiction to decide a second appeal on merits. In this case the High Court without framing any substantial question of law has allowed the appeal and this in itself is a sufficient ground to set aside the judgment under appeal. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment under appeal and send the matter back to the High Court to decide the appeal only after framing substan-tial question of law which may arise in the case.
3. The appeal is allowed. The High Court may decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
