NARAYANA GRAMANI & ORS. versus MARIAMMAL & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 11-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
  [2018] 9 S.C.R. 430
       430
NARAYANA GRAMANI & ORS.
v.
MARIAMMAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5057 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s. 100 – Second appeal –
Power of the High Court while deciding the second appeal – Scope
and ambit of – On facts, in second appeal, the High Court allowed
the defendants’ appeal and set aside the plaintiffs’ suit which was
decreed by the courts below – On appeal, held: Order passed by
the High Court not legally sustainable – High Court admitted the
second appeal by framing only one substantial question of law,
that whether the first appellate court was justified in dismissing the
defendants’ first appeal by taking into consideration one earlier
litigation in relation to the suit land, which was not between the
same parties – High Court failed to see that even if the said question
was answered in defendants’ favour, yet the plaintiffs’ suit could
not have been dismissed unless the High Court had further examined
the main issue of ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land, which
was decided by the courts below in plaintiffs’ favour – High Court
having failed to frame any substantial question of law on the issue
of the plaintiffs’ ownership over the suit land, had no jurisdiction
to examine the said issue in its second appellate jurisdiction, in the
light of s. 100(5) – Further, the High Court cursorily touched the
ownership issue which, could not be done – Also both the issue of
res judicata and ownership had to be examined independent of each
other on their respective merits, which was not done –  Thus, matter
remanded to the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Keeping in view the scope and ambit of the
powers of the High Court while deciding the second appeal, the
High Court committed an error in allowing the defendants’ second
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
431
appeal and further erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit by
answering the substantial question of law. [Para 17][437-F-G]
1.2  Mere perusal of the impugned order would go to show
that the High Court had admitted the second appeal by framing
only one substantial question of law, namely, whether the first
Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the defendants’ first
appeal by taking into consideration one earlier litigation in relation
to the suit land, which was not between the same parties. The
High Court held that the first Appellate Court was not justified
because the earlier litigation was not between the present plaintiffs
and the defendants but it was between the different parties and,
therefore, any decision rendered in such litigation would not
operate as res judicata in the present litigation between the
parties. This resulted in allowing of the appeal and dismissing
the suit. The High Court (Single Judge), failed to see that even if
the said question was answered in defendants’ favour, yet the
plaintiffs’ suit could not have been dismissed much less in its
entirety unless the High Court had further examined the main
issue of ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land, which was
decided by the two Courts below in plaintiffs’ favour on merits.
[Para 18-20] [431-H; 438-A-C]
1.3  It was necessary for the High Court to have proceeded
to examine the issue relating to the plaintiffs’ title over the suit
land, which was decided by the two Courts in plaintiffs’ favour
holding that the plaintiffs were able to prove their title over the
suit land on the basis of documentary evidence whereas the
defendants failed to prove their title though asserted.
[Para 21] [438-D-E]
1.4  The High Court committed another error when it failed
to frame any substantial question of law on the issue of the
plaintiffs’ ownership over the suit land. So long as no substantial
question of law was framed, the High Court had no jurisdiction to
examine the said issue in its second appellate jurisdiction. In
other words, the High Court having framed only one question,
which did not pertain to issue of ownership of the suit land, had
NARAYANA GRAMANI & ORS. v. MARIAMMAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
no jurisdiction to examine the issue of ownership. It was not
permissible in the light of Section 100 (5) CPC, which empowers
the High Court to decide the appeal only on the question framed
and not beyond it. [Para 22-23] [438-F-H]
1.5 The High Court could invoke its powers under provis

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