2008 (12) TMI 800 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Remits Case to High Court for Fresh Review; New Legal Questions Must Include Hearing Opportunity.

U.R. Virupakshaiah Versus Sarvamma & Anr.

U.R. Virupakshaiah Versus Sarvamma & Anr. - 2008 (17) SCR 877,  2009 (2) SCC 177,  2009 (1) JT 244,  2009 (1) SCALE 89  Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court could frame an additional question of law while dictating the judgment u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Whether the plaintiff proved the suit schedule properties as ancestral and joint family properties.3. Whether the defendant unlawfully got the revenue entries of the suit schedule property in his name.4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the suit schedule property and mesne profits.Summary:Issue 1: Framing of Additional Question of Law by High CourtThe primary issue was whether the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could frame an additional question of law during the judgment dictation without referring to the initially formulated questions of law. The Supreme Court held that the High Court must formulate a substantial question of law at the time of admission and should not frame a new question without assigning reasons and giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties. The High Court's action of framing a new question of law during judgment dictation without notice and declining the appellant's request for time was deemed impermissible.Issue 2: Ancestral and Joint Family PropertiesThe plaintiff claimed that the suit schedule properties were ancestral and joint family properties. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the properties continued to be joint family properties. The High Court, however, framed a new question of law regarding the existence of a joint family and the nature of the properties, which was not initially raised.Issue 3: Revenue Entries and Defendant's ActionsThe plaintiff alleged that the defendant unlawfully got the revenue entries of the suit schedule property in his name. The defendant contended that the properties had been in their possession since time immemorial and that the plaintiff had no relationship with them. The High Court did not address this issue in its judgment, focusing instead on the new question of law it framed.Issue 4: Plaintiff's Entitlement to Half Share and Mesne ProfitsThe Trial Court opined that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for partition except for the property mortgaged by his father. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff could not prove the properties were joint family properties. The High Court's new question of law did not address the plaintiff's entitlement to a half share and mesne profits directly.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, stating that the High Court did not deal with the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, with instructions to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant if any new substantial question of law is to be framed. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.