2008 (7) TMI 1098 - SC - Indian Laws

Judgment Set Aside: Case Remitted for Proper Proceedings Due to HC's Failure to Formulate Substantial Question of Law.

The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, underscoring the necessity for the HC to adhere to procedural mandates under Section 100 CPC. The ... - Issues Involved: The appeal challenges the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).Judgment Details:Issue 1: Second Appeal under Section 100 CPCThe appellant filed a suit claiming ownership of the property, which was upheld by the Trial Court and the first appellate court. The respondent filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court, which was allowed without framing any substantial question of law as required by the provision. The High Court's judgment did not formulate any substantial question of law, leading to the appeal being set aside and remitted back to the High Court for proper proceedings.Issue 2: Legal PrecedentsLegal precedents such as Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal and Roop Singh v. Ram Singh emphasize the necessity for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law before reversing a judgment. The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited to cases involving substantial questions of law and does not extend to interfering with factual findings unless there are errors of law. Various cases like Kanhaiyalal v. Anupkumar and Gian Dass v. The Gram Panchayat Village Sunner Kalan reaffirm this principle.Conclusion:The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements and legal principles governing second appeals under Section 100 CPC.