Summary
The Supreme Court remanded a second appeal because the High Court had reversed the first appellate decree without answering the six substantial questions of law framed at admission. It instead discussed other matters as though exercising first appellate jurisdiction. A second appeal must remain confined to the formulated substantial questions, subject to lawful formulation of additional questions with recorded reasons. The underlying title and possession dispute was left undecided.
Issues
- Whether a second appeal could be allowed without answering its formulated substantial questions of law.
- What scope remained for additional questions and objections at the hearing.
Held
- The High Court had formulated six substantial questions but answered none on their merits. Its discussion of unrelated issues and treatment of the proceeding as a first appeal rendered the decision unsustainable. (¶¶ 10–11, 14)
- Second-appellate inquiry must be confined to the substantial questions framed. A respondent may contest whether those questions arise or qualify as substantial questions, while additional questions may be formulated through a reasoned exercise of the statutory power. (¶ 12–13)
- Fresh adjudication was required without influence from the impugned order or remand observations. The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the parties’ property dispute. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment set aside and second appeal remanded for fresh decision on its merits in accordance with law.