JAMES JOSEPH versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 844 · Decided: 31-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 844 
JAMES JOSEPH 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
(Civil Appeal No. 7207 of 201 O) 
AUGUST 31, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Kerela Forest Act, 1961: 
c 
ss. 12A and 11 - Appeal uls. 12A, against appellate order 
u/s. 11 - Scope of - Held: Appeal uls. 12A is available both 
in respect of questions of fact and questions of law - It would 
lie without specifying any limitation or restriction - Sub-section 
(2) of s. 12A/r. 2(1) and form of appeal under Kera/a Forest 
0 
(Appeal to the High Court) Rules does not require the 
memorandum of appeal to state substantial questions of law 
involved - On facts, th.ere was no need for High Court to frame 
any substantial question of law while admitting appeal or 
before posting the appeal for hearing - Order of High Court. 
E that s. 12A does not provide for 'second appeal' but only for 
an appeal against appellate order and was not limited to 
substantial questions of law, justified - Appeal - Kera/a Forest 
(Appeal to the High Court) Rules 1981 -
Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 - s. 100. 
F 
s. 12A and s. 100 CPC - Difference between - Stated -
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100. 
Appeal - Appeals from appellate orders -
General 
principles - Stated. 
G 
The State Government issued a notification under 
Section 4 of the Travancore Forest Regulation II of 1068 
ME proposing to declare certain lands as revenue forest. 
The appellant's predecessor claimed title to certain lands 
since the said land formed part of the proposed reserve 
H 
844 
JAMES JOSEPH v. STATE OF KERALA 
845 
forest. The Forest Settlement Officer rejected the claim. 
A 
However, the Additional District Judge allowed the 
appeal. Aggrieved, the respondent-State Government 
filed an appeal under Section 12A of the Kerala Forest 
Act, 1961. The High Court allowed the second appeal. 
Thereafter, on appeal by the appellant, the Supreme Court 
B 
remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration 
afresh. The High Court held that Section 12A of the Act 
does not provide for a 'second appeal' but only provides 
for an appeal against an appellate order and was not 
limited to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the 
C 
appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 100 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 limits the jurisdiction in an appeal. It 
D 
specifically provides that the second appeal will be 
available only where there exists substantial question of 
law. Some enactments do not specify that the second 
appeal will be restricted to substantial questions of law, 
but incorporate Section 100 of the Code by reference, in 
E 
regard to appeals from appellate orders. [Para 14] (857-
C-D] 
1.2 The principles with reference to appeals are: 
(i) An appeal is a proceeding where an higher forum 
reconsiders the decision of a lower forum, on 
questions of fact and questions of law, with 
jurisdiction to confirm, reverse, modify the decision 
or remand the matter to the lower forum for fresh 
decision in terms of its directions. 
(ii) The appellate jurisdiction can be limited or 
regulated by the legislature and its extent has to be 
decided with reference to the language employed by 
the statute conferring the appellate jurisdiction. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
(iii) The width of jurisdiction or the limitations on 
jurisdiction with reference to an appeal, does not 
depend on whether the appeal is a first appeal or a 
second appeal, but depends upon the limitations, if 
any, placed by the statute conferring the right of 
appeal. 
(iv) If the Legislature's intention is to limit the 
jurisdiction in an appeal, it may indicate such limits 
in the provision providing for appeal. Alternatively, it 
may expressly or impliedly incorporate the provisions 
of section 100 of the Code, into the provision for 
appeals. 
(v) Generally statutory provisions for appeals against 
original orders or decrees (that is, first appeals) will 
not have any limitations and, therefore, rehearing on 
both law and fact is contemplated; and statutory 
provisions for appeals against appellate orders (that 
is, second appeals) will be restricted to questions of 
law. But such restriction is not on account of any 
legal principle that all second appeals should always 
be with reference to questions of law, but would 
depend upon the wording of the statute placing the 
restrictions upon the scope of second appeal. 

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