Second appeal requires a notified substantial question of law; relief for possession must rest on the pleaded and proved case.

In second appeal, the SC reaffirmed that reversal of the first appellate court's decree requires a formulated and notified substantial question of law; without that notice, interference with factual findings is unsustainable. The Court also held that a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession must succeed on the pleaded case and proved evidence. A plaintiff cannot rely on an unpleaded alternative foundation, and the claimed mutawalli status could not support relief where the factual basis was neither pleaded nor established. The High Court's decree was set aside and the suit dismissed, while the Wakf Board direction under the relevant statute was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could reverse the first appellate court's decree in second appeal without formulating and notifying the substantial question of law as required by law. (ii) Whether the plaintiff could sustain the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the basis that it was acting as a mutawalli, in the absence of such pleading and proof.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could reverse the first appellate court's decree in second appeal without formulating and notifying the substantial question of law as required by law.

Analysis: A second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law, and the parties must be put on notice of the question so that they may address it. Where the High Court formulates or relies on a substantial question of law without affording such opportunity, the procedure is contrary to the mandate governing second appeals. The reversal of concurrent factual findings in such circumstances is legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference in second appeal on this basis was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff could sustain the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the basis that it was acting as a mutawalli, in the absence of such pleading and proof.

Analysis: Relief in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession must rest on the case pleaded. A party cannot succeed on an unpleaded alternative foundation, especially where no issue was framed and no sufficient evidence was led to establish that foundation. The definition of mutawalli could not assist the plaintiff unless the factual basis for that status was both pleaded and proved. Since the transfer of mutawalliship under the agreement was found invalid and the alternative case was neither pleaded nor proved, the suit could not succeed.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession on the unpleaded and unproved basis of acting as a mutawalli.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed, while the direction regarding action by the Wakf Board under the relevant statute was left intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, reversal of factual findings requires adherence to the statutory requirement of a notified substantial question of law, and a civil decree must be founded on the pleaded case proved by evidence, not on an unpleaded alternative basis.

---