SMT. RAM SAKHI DEVI versus CHHATRA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 12-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. RAM SAKHI DEVI 
v. 
CHHA TRA DEVI AND ORS. 
JUL y 12, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section JOO-Second appeal-Judgment 
of High Court without framing substantial question of law-Held, not 
C sustainable. 
D 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether judgment rendered by the High Court in second appeal without 
framing a substantial question oflaw as required by S.100 CPC is sustainable. 
·Remitting back the matter to the High Court, the Court 
HELD: Sub-section (3) of Section 100 CPC requires the memorandum 
of appeal to precisely state substantial question or questions of law involved 
in the appeal. Where the High Court is satisfied that in any case any 
substantial questicm of law is involved it shall formulate that question under 
E sub-section (4) and-the second appeal has to be heard on- the question so 
formulated as stated in sub-section (5) of Se_ctton 100. The judgment passed 
by the High Court does not show that any substantial question of law has been 
formulated or. t~at the second appeal was heard on the question, if any, so 
formulated. That being so, the judgment cannot be maintained. 
F 
[545-H; 546-A, G]. 
Jshwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, [2000) 1 SCC 434; Roop Singh(Dead) 
Through LRs. v. Ram Singh (Dead)Through LRs., (2000] 3 SCC 708; 
Kanhaiyalal and Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors., JT (2002) 10 SC 98; R. Lakshmi 
· Narayan v. Santhi, [2001) 4 SCC 688; MS V Raja and Anr. v. Seeni Thevar 
and Ors., [2001) 6 SCC 652; R. VE. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu 
G Viswesaraswami and VP. Temple and Anr., [2003) 8 SCC 752; Md. Mohammad 
Ali (dead) by Lrs. v. Jagadish Kalita and Ors., [2004) 1 SCC 271; C~~dat 
Singh v. Bahadur Ram and Ors:, JT [2004) 6 SC 296; Kishori Lal and Anr. v. 
Madan Gopal(d) by Lrs. and Ors., JT (2094) 8 SC 422 and Mathakala 
Krishnaiah v. V Rajagopal, [2004) 10 SCC 676, relied on. 
H 
544 
\-
1 
RAM SAKHIDEVI v. CHHATRA DEVI [PASA YAT, J.] 
545 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3608 of2005. ' A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2002 of the Patna High Coui:t 
in S.A.No. 244 of 1988. 
D.K. Thakur and Debasis Misra for the Appellant. 
Krishna Prasad, Sanjay R. Hegde, S.K. Verma and N.S. Bisht for t~e 
Respondents. 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by j a 
learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Second Appeal in ten11s 
of Section I 00 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the 'code'. T~e 
respondents are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff - lshraj Narayan Singh. 
B 
c 
The original plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of his title over the s~it D 
'land and declaration of want of title of Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi, the appellant 
herein, the defendant No. 3 in the suit. The trial court had decreed the suit 
but in appeal the First Appellate Court reversed it. The respondents filed ~he 
second appeal before the Patna High Court. By the impugned judgment the 
I 
High Court restored the judgment and decree of the trial court and set aside E 
the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. 
Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the piv~tal 
plea was that the High Court could not have interfered with the judgment and 
I 
d~cree of the First Appellate court without framing a substantial question of 
law as enjo!!l_t:d by Section 100 of the Code. The High 
Court can dnly F 
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the code in Second Appeal
1 on 
the basis of substantial question of law framed at the time of admitting appeal 
A Second Appeal can be heard and decided only on the basis of substantial 
question of law , if any. The judgment rendered by the High Court in Secpnd 
appeal without following the aforesaid procedure is not sustainable in law. 
I 
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted 
1that 
the question of law is self evident and on a technical plea that a question of 
law has not been framed, the well reasoned judgment should not be set aside. 
I 
As mandated by sub-section 3 of Section 100 of the Code,: the 
G 
memorandum of appeal shall precisely state substantial question or questions H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A of law involved in the appeal. Where the High Court is satisfied that in any 
case any substantial question of law is involved it shall fonnulate that 

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