RANJIT KUMAR KARMAKAR @ DULAL KARMAKAR versus HARI SHANKAR DAS

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 18-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
RANJIT KUMAR KARMAKAR @ DULAL KARMAKAR
v.
HARI SHANKAR DAS
(Civil Appeal No. 3967 of 2019)
APRIL 18, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal –
Appellant-plaintiff filed suit for declaration of his right, title and
interest in the suit land, for confirmation of his possession over the
suit land and lastly for permanent injunction – Suit dismissed by
the Trial Court – Aggrieved, plaintiff filed first appeal, which was
allowed – In second appeal, High Court set aside the judgment of
first appellate Court and restored the judgment of the Trial Court –
On appeal, held: High Court though admitted the defendant’s
second appeal by framing six substantial questions of law for its
hearing but none of the substantial questions were answered –
Instead, High Court discussed all other issues, which were not the
subject matter of the six questions framed – s.100(5) CPC provides
that the second appeal shall be heard only on the substantial
question(s) of law framed by the High Court u/s.100(4) of the
Code – Thus, case remanded to the High Court for deciding second
appeal afresh.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  The High Court though admitted the second
appeal by framing six substantial questions of law but did not
answer any of them on merits and instead went into discussion
on all other issues, which were not the subject matter of the six
questions framed and allowed the second appeal as if it was
deciding the first appeal. [Para 11][152-H; 153-A]
2.  Section 100 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in
express terms, provides that the second appeal shall be heard
only on the substantial question(s) of law framed by the High
Court under Section 100 (4) of the Code.  Therefore, the High
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 150
150
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
Court has to confine its inquiry to the question(s) framed and not
beyond it. [Para 12][153-A-B]
3.  The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 100 of the
Code also enables the respondent to raise a plea at the time of
hearing that the questions framed either do not arise in the case
or the questions framed are not the substantial questions of law.
At the same time, the High Court has the jurisdiction to frame
any additional question(s) of law but this the High Court can do
by assigning the reasons. [Para 13][153-C]
4.  Since the High Court failed to answer the six questions
either way on their respective merits and yet proceeded to allow
the second appeal, such order, is not legally sustainable and has
to be set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for
deciding the second appeal, out of which this appeal arises, afresh
on its merits. [Paras 14, 15][153-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3967
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated  24.09.2014 of the  High
Court of Tripura at Agartala in R.S.A. No. 42 of 2007.
Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Babita Sant, Reepak Kansal, Pravir
Choudhary,  Advs. for the Appellant.
Rituraj Biswas, Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Chandra Prakash, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
24.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agartala in R.S.A.
No.42 of 2007 whereby the High Court allowed the second appeal filed
by the respondent herein, set aside the judgment/decree dated 24.04.2007
passed by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in T.A.
No.34 of 2006 and restored the judgment/decree dated 05.04.2006 passed
by the Civil Judge(Junior Division) No.2, Agartala, West Tripura in T.S.
No.103 of 2004.
RANJIT KUMAR KARMAKAR v. HARI SHANKAR DAS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this
appeal, which involves a short point.
4. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant
of the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
5. The appellant filed a civil suit (T.S.No.103 of 2004) against the
respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The suit was
for declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit land, for confirmation
of his possession over the suit land and lastly for permanent injunction.
The respondent contested the suit.
6. The Trial Court, by judgment/decree dated 05.04.2006 dismissed
the suit. The plaintiff (appellant herein) felt aggrieved and filed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.