Summary
The Court restored dismissal of a landowner’s suit for declaration and possession against a trust. The High Court had reversed concurrent findings without framing a substantial question of law. The plaintiff had obtained an earlier specific-performance decree without impleading purchasers despite knowledge of their registered transaction, and had not entered the witness box herself. The purchasers fell within the protection for transferees for value in good faith without notice of the original contract. The Court found it unnecessary to decide adverse possession or the disputed manner of delivery.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reverse concurrent findings in second appeal without framing a substantial question of law.
- Whether the earlier specific-performance decree obtained without joining protected purchasers supported the plaintiff’s claim against the trust.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Framing a substantial question of law was mandatory before finally deciding the second appeal. (¶ 22)
- Section 19(b), Specific Relief Act, 1963The earlier purchaser and subsequent purchasers, including the trust, fell within the exception for transferees for value in good faith without notice of the original contract. (¶¶ 14, 24-25)
Held
- The High Court’s jurisdiction to decide a second appeal finally arises after framing a substantial question of law. Even if none was framed at admission, the requirement had to be satisfied before decision. Its reversal of concurrent findings could not stand. (¶¶ 21-22, 26)
- The plaintiff’s manager admitted knowledge of the prior registered sale, yet the purchasers were not impleaded in the specific-performance suit. A decree obtained behind the bona fide purchasers’ backs could not support the claim against them; they were protected by Section 19(b). (¶ 24-25)
- The plaintiff did not testify herself, while the manager appeared without producing proper authorisation and made admissions contrary to her case. These evidentiary deficiencies supported restoration of dismissal. The Court did not need to adjudicate adverse possession or resolve the disputed manner of delivery of possession. (¶ 24-27)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and dismissal of the respondent’s suit restored; parties to bear their own costs.