Summary
The Supreme Court remanded a second appeal because rejecting the first appellate court’s reliance on an earlier litigation did not by itself justify dismissal of the plaintiffs’ title suit. Ownership had been independently found in their favour by both courts below. The High Court had neither framed an appropriate substantial question of law on ownership nor properly examined it. Fresh adjudication was directed, preferably within six months, without any view on title merits.
Issues
- Whether answering the framed res judicata question justified dismissing the suit without examining the independent title findings.
- Whether the High Court could disturb ownership findings without framing an appropriate substantial question of law.
Provisions considered
- Section 100(3)–(5), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Second appellate adjudication must address formulated substantial questions of law. An additional question may be framed at hearing with recorded reasons, and the respondent may contest whether the formulated question arises. (¶¶ 14–16, 22–25, 28)
Held
- Second appeal requires the High Court’s satisfaction that a substantial question of law arises, its formulation and a hearing on that question. A different substantial question may be taken up under the proviso only with recorded reasons. (¶ 15–16)
- Even assuming the earlier litigation did not operate as res judicata, that did not answer the independent ownership issue decided for the plaintiffs on evidence. Dismissing the suit merely by answering the res judicata question was erroneous. (¶¶ 18–21, 25)
- The only framed question did not concern ownership. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to examine that issue without an appropriate substantial question and could not dispose of it cursorily. It could have formulated an additional question under the statutory proviso but did not. (¶ 22–25)
- The impugned judgment was set aside and the second appeal remanded for proper formulation and adjudication of substantial questions concerning the ownership findings. The Supreme Court expressed no merits opinion and requested disposal preferably within six months. (¶ 26–30)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and second appeal remanded for fresh decision after proper substantial-question formulation, preferably within six months. Title merits left open.