SC Reiterates that High Courts Must Discuss Questions of Law Before Allowing the Second Appeal

Must Read

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Follow us

The present case arises from a dispute of possession of a premise wherein the Supreme Court held that the High Court must look into the bigger questions of law before allowing any Second Appeal.

Brief facts of the case

This appeal arises from a judgment that dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the Appellant but allowed the one by the Respondent. The order of the First Appellate Court was set aside to the extent of Respondent’s claim to a decree of recovery of possession of the suit premise.

Aggrieved by this, the Appellant approach this Court.

The said case pertains to the idea of ownership and possession of the immovable property. Both parties claim to be owners of the premise. The Respondent claims that the Appellant is his tenant and has also defaulted on the payment of rent. He seeks to recover the same and prays for a declaration of ownership of the property.

Arguments

The Appellant asserts that the tax of the premise is assessed in the name of his father. He also contended that he received the premise from his father under a Deed of Release dated 14.3.1966. He has since enjoyed the premise with absolute rights.

Further, he argues that there was no question of law involved in either of the second appeals, far less any larger question of law, to warrant an inference of the High Court in the Second Appeal filed by the Respondent.

Respondent’s main claim was based on the assertion that one Rajagopala Pattar who had purchased the suit premises in a Court Auction had sold the said premises to the Respondent’s father in 1940. But he did not produce any documents to prove the same.

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that the HC while hearing the Second Appeal did not take note of the question of law. They opined that the two questions framed by the HC are not questions of law, much less large. They stated that there was no controversy before the High Court about the interpretation or legal effect of any document. There was also no wrong application of a principle of law that might have given rise to a question of law. There was no debatable issue before the High Court that was not covered by settled principles of law or precedents.

Further, they said for a question to be a question of law involved in the case, its foundation must be laid in the pleadings. Plus, it should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact, arrived at by Courts of facts. It also must be necessary to decide that question of law for a and proper decision of the case. A point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter.

The Court then summarized the principles governing Section 100 of CPC i.e. the provision for the second appeal.

Moreover, the person who claims a decree of possession has to establish his entitlement to the same. He must show that he is not barred by the laws of limitation. Further, he must prove that he did have possession before the alleged trespasser got possession. The maxim possession follows title is applicable only when there is no definite proof of possession of the property by anyone else. In this case, it is admitted that the Appellant is in the possession and not the Respondent.

The Court cited Section 3 of the Limitation Act. It provides that the Court is obligated to dismiss any suit instituted after the expiry of the period of limitation.

The plaint did not disclose when the Appellant or his predecessor took possession of the premise. Hence, giving the Respondent the relief of recovery of possession was wrong. The High Court could not have allowed it when the plaint was silent about the date of possession. 

More so, when the Appellant had pleaded that he had been in complete possession of the suit premises, as an owner, with absolute rights, ever since 1966. 

Court’s Order

The division bench allowed the appeals. They set aside the High Court’s judgment and order to the extent of the Second Appeal. The decree of the First Appellate Court is restored.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -