RAM CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. & ORS. versus UDAI SINGH@ DAYA RAM & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 731 · Decided: 24-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 731 
RAM CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. & ORS. 
A 
v. 
UDAI SINGH@ DAYA RAM & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11107-11108 of 2017) 
AUGUST 24, 2017 
[R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.I 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
B 
s. JOO - Second appeal - Suit for declaration o.f right, title 
C 
and interest in the suit property - Suit decreed giving only symbolic 
possession to the plaintiff - Cross appeals (first appeal) - Dismissed 
- Second appeal by plaintiff as well as defendant - Decided in 
favour of defendant by High Court - On appeal, held: Since the 
High Court failed to frame substantial questions o.f law as is required D 
to be framed at the time of admission of the second appeal, the 
impugned order is not sustainable - Case remanded to High Court 
for deciding the second appeals afresh in accordance with law. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
Hj:LD: 1. In order to admit the second appeal, what is 
required to be made out by the appellant being sine qua non for 
exercise of powers under Section 100 of CPC is existence of 
"substantial question of law" arising in the case so as to empower 
the High Court to admit the appeal for final hearing by formulation 
on such question. In the absence of any substantial question 
arising in appeal, the same merits dismissal in li111i11e on the 
ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question 
of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. [Para 171 [735-
A-B 1 
E 
F 
2. In the present case, the High Court while disposing of 
second appeals filed by the both parties did not frame any 
G 
substantial question of law as is required to be framed at the time 
of admission of the second appeal and proceeded to allow the 
appeal filed by the defendants and dismiss the appeal filed by the 
plaintiff. Th"erefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable 
and thus liable to be set aside.The case is remanded to the High 
H 
731 
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Court for deciding the second appeals afresh in accordance with 
B 
Jaw. [Paras 15, 19 and 201 1734-D; 735-D-EI 
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by 
L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179: I 20011 1 SCR 948 - relied 
on. 
Case Law Reference 
(2001] 1 SCR 948 
relied on 
Para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
C 
Nos. 11107-11108 of2017. 
From the impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2011 
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in R.S.A. 
No.1791/1980 and R.S.A. No.2037. 
D 
Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv., A.P. Jain, Ram Niwas, Anurag Jain, 
Ms. N. Annaporani, Advs. for the Appellants. 
E 
R.S Sihota, Sr. Adv., P.l. Jose, Shashank Mishra, Ms. Pooja 
Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. Leave granted. 
1.These appeals are filed by the legal representatives of original 
plaintiff against the common final judgment and order dated 21.11.2011 
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular 
Second Appeal Nos. 1791and2037of1980 whereby the High Court 
F 
dismissed RSA No.1791 of 1980 filed by the appellants (plaintiff) and 
allowed R.S.A. No.2037of1980 filed by the respondents (defendants). 
2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue 
involved in these appeals. 
G 
3. The dispute in the suit out of which this appeal arises relates to 
agricultural lands comprises of Khewat No. 280 Khata No. 350 Rect. 
No. 258 Killa No. 25 area 5 kanal, Reel. No. 295 Killa No. 5 area -01 
maria, Rect. No. 214 Killa 11 area 5 kanals 12 marlas, killa no. 12 area 
8 kanal, Rect. Np. 255 Killa No. 6/1 area 2 kanals I 0 marlas, 6/2 area 2 
kanals 17 mar las, 7I1 area 4 kanals 3 marl as, 712 are.a 3 killa 17 marlas 
H 
RAM CHAND (DECEASED) THR. L.RS. & ORS. v. UDAI 
733 
SINGH @DAYA RAM & ORS.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
Killa 8 area 8 kanals, Rect. 258 killa 16 area 6 kanals 6 marlas, killa 24 
A 
. area 8 kanals, total area 54 kanals 6 marlas situated in Patti Bedha, 
Hodel (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land"). 
4. The plaintiff (Ram Chand) since dead and now represented by 
his legal representatives (appellants herein) filed a civil suit out of which 
these appeals arise against the respondents (defendants) claiming right; B 
title and interest in the suit land. The plaintiff(appellants) also claimed 
possession of the suit lands from the defendants (respondents). 
5. The claim of the plaintiff, in substance, is based on the law of 
inheritance. It is, inter ali
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.