RAMDAS WAYDHAN GADLINGE (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS. VATSALABAI RAMDAS GADLINGE & ORS. versus GYANCHAND NANURAM KRIPLANI (DEAD) THR LRS. DHRUPADABAI & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 28-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VINEET SARAN, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
RAMDAS WAYDHAN GADLINGE (SINCE DECEASED) THR
LRS. VATSALABAI RAMDAS GADLINGE & ORS.
v.
GYANCHAND NANURAM KRIPLANI (DEAD) THR LRS.
DHRUPADABAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4479 of 2021)
JULY 28, 2021
[VINEET SARAN AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLII and XLI and
s.100 – Suit for recovery of possession and damages – Dismissed
by trial court – First Appellate Court reversed the decision, and
decreed the suit – Second appeal dismissed by High Court –
Challenge to – Held: The High Court, after having admitted the
second appeal and having formulated substantial questions of law,
could not have disposed of the same by only stating its satisfaction
on the findings of the First Appellate Court without examining the
relevant points arising from the submissions of the parties and without
examining as to whether the First Appellate Court was justified in
reversing the findings of the Trial Court – The judgment of High
Court was akin to that of a summary disposal of the second appeal
and that cannot be approved, because the second appeal had been
admitted on specific questions – Once a second appeal is admitted,
on the High Court being satisfied that a substantial question of law
is involved in the case and with formulation of that question, the
appeal is required to be heard in terms of Order XLII CPC – A look
at Order XLII CPC makes it clear that except for the limitations
envisaged by r.2 thereof read with s.100, the rules of Order XLI do
apply, so far as may be, for the purpose of hearing of the second
appeal, i.e., an appeal from appellate decree – A second appeal,
after its admission with formulation of substantial question of law,
cannot be disposed of summarily – The Court has further power to
hear the appeal on any other substantial question of law if not
formulated earlier for reasons to be recorded – Of course, at the
time of hearing, the respondent is entitled to argue that the case
does not involve the question or questions so formulated but, in the
present case, there is no indication in the judgment of the High
Court if the respondent even argued that the case did not involve
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 866
866
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
867
the formulated questions or any of them – It has also not been the
conclusion by the High Court that the questions so formulated were
not involved in the case – That being the position, it was required of
the High Court to examine the matter in necessary details and then,
to determine the substantial questions of law formulated in the case
– In this view of the matter, the matter is remanded for reconsideration
by the High Court on the questions of law already formulated by it.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4479
of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur, Nagpur in Second Appeal
No. 275 of 2001.
Manoj Gorkela, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advs. for the Appellants.
Garvesh Kabra, Adv. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The legal representatives of defendant in a suit for recovery of
possession and damages have preferred this appeal against the judgment
and order dated 08.03.2016, as passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Second Appeal No. 275 of 2001.
2. The predecessor of the present respondents filed the suit for
possession and damages (CS No. 189 of 1995) in the Court of Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Akola against the predecessor of the present
appellants, essentially with the claim that he (the plaintiff) had purchased
the suit property from the defendant under a registered sale deed dated
01.10.1992 for a consideration of Rs. 27,500/- and the defendant had
put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff asserted
that later on, the defendant put his lock over the property and thereafter
inducted tenants therein; whereupon he filed a police complaint and then
filed the present suit on 03.08.1995, seeking recovery of possession as
also damages.
3. The defendant, while resisting the claim so made by the plaintiff,
contended that he had never sold the property to the plaintiff; rather he
had taken a loan of Rs. 27,500/- for which, a nominal sale deed was
RAMDAS WAYDHAN GADLINGE (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS.
VATSALABAI RAMDAS GADLINGE v. GYANCHAND NANURAM
KRIPLANI (DEAD) THR LRS. DHRUPADABAI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021]

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