Summary
The High Court disposed of rival second appeals in an agricultural-land inheritance dispute without formulating a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court held that noting counsel’s assertion that such a question arose did not satisfy Section 100 CPC. It set aside the common judgment and remanded both second appeals for fresh decision.
Issues
- Whether second appeals could be decided without formulation of a substantial question of law.
Held
- Existence and formulation of a substantial question of law are essential to exercise of second-appellate jurisdiction. Merely recording counsel’s submission that such a question arose was insufficient. (¶ 15–19)
- The procedural jurisdictional defect required fresh consideration by the High Court; ownership, inheritance, the asserted will and entitlement to possession were not determined by the Supreme Court. (¶ 14–20)
Result
Appeals allowed; common High Court judgment set aside and both second appeals remanded for decision in accordance with law.