GOVINDARAJU versus MARIAMMAN

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1100 · Decided: 04-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOVINDARAJU 
v. 
MARIAMMAN 
FEBRUARY 4, 2005 
B 
[ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1955; Sections 15(/)(b) and 15(2)(b): 
Property in dispute allegedly purchased by appellant and respondent 
C from different persons-legal heirs-Suit for declaration of title and permanent 
injunction filed by one of the vendees-Dismissed by Trial Court holding that 
both the parties failed to prove the title of their respective vendors in the suit 
property-Affirmed by first Appellate Court-Reversed by High Court holding 
that the Vendor/respondent had conveyable title to the suit property since the 
D property was inherited by him as the only legal heir of the deceased owner/ 
successor-On appeal, Held: Sale of the property effected in favour of 
respondent-Vendee did not convey any title as the vendor not proved to be 
the owner of the property-High Court erroneously reversed the findings of 
fact recorded by Court below without concluding the same as perverse-
Hence set aside. 
E 
F 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section I 00: 
Second Appeal-Jurisdiction of High Court-Held: Existence of 
substantial questions of/aw is the sine qua non/or the exercise ofjurisdiction 
by High Court for entertaining second appeal. 
The Suit property was owned by the father of M & V, two brothers. 
Appellant claims to be the purchaser of the suit property from descendants 
of M and the respondent claims to be the purchaser of the same property 
from descendants of V, brother of M. Respondent filed a suit for 
G declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the appellant 
from disturbing his possession. rt was averred in the plaint that the suit 
property belonged to one V who sold it to his two daughters for Rs. 300 
as consideration amount. Since one of the daughters died issueless, her 
share in the property came to the share of her sister. Later, she also died 
issueless. One G claiming himself to be her step son succeeded to her estate 
H 
1100 
j 
... 
GOVINDARAJU v. MARIAMMAN 
1101 
by virtue of Section lS(l)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act. He sold the A 
property to respondent-vendee, one of the claimants. Since appellant-
another claimant of the property was interfering with the peaceful 
enjoyment of the property, the respondent filed a declaratory suit. Trial 
Court dismissed the suit holding that the sale deed executed in favour of 
the respondent was not a valid one and also the sale made in favour of 
the appellant was not proved. First Appellate Court upheld the order of B 
the Trial Court. But High Court reversed the findings of the Courts below. 
Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the questions of law 
formulated by the High Court at the time of admission of the appeal did C 
not raise earlier and the High Court failed to determine any one of them; 
and that the High Court erroneously assumed that once the questions of 
law have been framed, it gets the jurisdiction to decide the appeal . 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. The existence of substantial questions of law is the sine 
qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. As per 
settled law, the scope of exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in 
Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to the substantial 
questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal or additional 
substantial questions of law framed at a later date after recording reasons J? 
for the same. To be a 'substantial' question of law, it must be debatable, 
not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent and answer 
to the same will have a material bearing as to the rights of the parties 
before the Court. To be a question of law 'involving in the case' there must 
be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should F 
emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by the Court of 
facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just 
and proper decision between the parties. [1107-F; 1109-E-F-G) 
Santosh Hazari v. Purushollam Tiwari (Deceased) by Lrs., [2001) 3 
SCC 179; Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait and Ors., G 
[1997) 5 SCC 438; Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami, [1997) 
4 SCC 413; Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, [1999) 3 
SCC 722 and Thiagarajan and Ors. v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and 
Ors., (20041 5 SCC 762, relied on. 
1.2. In the instant case, the questions of law fr

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