Possession suits and second appeals require proper issue framing, with trespasser status and substantial questions of law ining the outcome.

In a possession suit based on title, the court must decide the defendant's true legal status by framing and determining the real controversy, including whether the defendant is a trespasser, because that issue may affect available defences such as adverse possession or lawful possession. A decree cannot rest only on the failure to prove tenancy if the defendant's status remains undecided. In second appeal, the matter must proceed on formulated substantial questions of law; where that safeguard is not followed, interference and remand may be justified. The text also notes that, in the interests of complete justice, procedural directions may include amendment of pleadings, additional written statements, fresh evidence, and expedited disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a suit for eviction based on title, a decree for possession could be granted when the relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved and no issue was framed on whether the defendant was a trespasser. (ii) Whether the absence of a framed issue and substantial questions of law in second appeal justified interference and remand, with further relief under Article 142.

Issue (i): Whether, in a suit for eviction based on title, a decree for possession could be granted when the relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved and no issue was framed on whether the defendant was a trespasser.

Analysis: A plaintiff in a possession suit may, in an appropriate case, succeed on proof of title even if tenancy is not established. However, where the defendant contests the claim and asserts a different possessory character, the court must frame and decide the real controversy. In the present case, the defendant's status as trespasser was not adjudicated, though such a finding was material because it could have enabled a defence based on adverse possession or other lawful possession. The omission was not a mere technicality, as it affected the defendant's opportunity to lead evidence on the true nature of possession.

Conclusion: The decree could not properly rest on the absence of tenancy alone without deciding whether the defendant was a trespasser.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a framed issue and substantial questions of law in second appeal justified interference and remand, with further relief under Article 142.

Analysis: A second appeal must be decided on formulated substantial questions of law. Since the High Court did not properly frame such questions and the suit had proceeded without an issue on trespass, the matter required correction. At the same time, because the litigation was old and the plaintiffs sought eviction on a basis not fully pleaded, complete justice required permitting amendment of the plaint, payment of requisite court fee, filing of an additional written statement, framing of the appropriate issue, and fresh evidence, with a direction for expeditious disposal.

Conclusion: Interference was warranted and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication with consequential procedural directions.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge succeeded in part, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the suit was sent back for decision after amendment and framing of the proper issue.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for possession where tenancy is not proved, the court must decide the defendant's true legal status by framing the appropriate issue, and a second appeal cannot be sustained without formulated substantial questions of law.

---