CHAND KAUR (D) THR. LRS. versus MEHAR KAUR (D) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 28-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
CHAND KAUR (D) THR. LRS.
v.
MEHAR KAUR (D) THR. LRS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3276-3281 of 2019)
MARCH 28, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeals were
disposed of by the High Court without framing any substantial
question(s) of law – Held: Framing of substantial questions of law
in instant appeals was mandatory because the High Court allowed
the second appeals and interfered in the judgment of the First
Appellate Court, which was impugned in the second appeals – The
sine qua non for allowing the second appeal is to first frame the
substantial question(s) of law arising in the case and then decide
the second appeal by answering the question(s) framed – Thus,
case remanded to High Court to first frame substantial question(s),
which, according to the appellants of the second appeals, arise in
their respective second appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court has consistently held that the High
Court has no jurisdiction to allow the second appeal without
framing a substantial question of law as provided under Section
100 of the Code. In other words, the sine qua non for allowing
the second appeal is to first frame the substantial question(s) of
law arising in the case and then decide the second appeal by
answering the question(s) framed. [Para 6][888-G-H; 889-A]
2. Since in this case, the High Court failed to frame any
substantial question either at the time of admitting the appeal or
before final hearing and yet proceeded to allow some of the second
appeals in the bunch by modifying the judgment impugned therein,
the High Court committed jurisdictional error requiring this Court
to interfere.  Thus, cases remanded to the High Court, which will
accordingly decide the appeals on merits strictly in accordance
with law. [Para 7][889-C-E]
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 886
886
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
887
Surat Singh(Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. (2018) 4
SCC 562 : [2018] 1   SCR 1063; Vijay Arjun Bhagat &
Ors. v. Nana Laxman Tapkire & Ors. (2018) 6 SCC
72 7 : [ 2018] 4 SCR 452   –  referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2018] 1 SCR 1063
  referred to
Para 6
[2018] 4 SCR 452
  referred to
Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal Nos. 3276-
3281 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2011 of the  High Court
of  Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. Nos. 2066, 2067, 2068,
2292, 2293 & 2294 of 1987
P. P. Nayak,  Ms. Vandana Hooda, Ms. Bhupinder, Ajay Pal,,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Shruti Bisht, Ms. S. Janani, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1.  Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order
dated 23.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in RSA Nos. 2066, 2067, 2068, 2292 and 2294 of 1987.
3.  It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail  for the disposal
of these appeals for the reason that having heard the learned counsel for
the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we have formed an
opinion to remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second
appeals, out of which these appeals arise, for their fresh disposal on
merits in accordance with law.
4. The need to remand these cases to the High Court is called for
because we find that the High Court though disposed of bunch of second
appeals (RSA Nos.2066 to 2068 of 1987 and RSA 2292 to 2294 of 1987)
but it did so without framing any substantial question(s) of law as is
required to be framed under Section 100 of  the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).
CHAND KAUR (D) THR. LRS. v. MEHAR KAUR (D)
THR. LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
5. In our opinion,  framing of substantial question(s) of law in the
present appeals was mandatory because the High Court allowed the
second appeals and interfered in the judgment of the First Appellate
Court, which was impugned in the second appeals. It is clear from the
last paragraph of the impugned order quoted hereinbelow:
       “However, I am unable to convince myself with the
latter part of the judgment of the ld. lower appellate court
wherein Chand Kaur was held to be entitled to ½ share of
the property of Jaimal, by placing reliance on the judgment
delivered in the previous litigation between Mehar Singh
and Chand Kaur.  Once the ld. lower Appellate Court arrived
at a specific finding of fact tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.