SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA versus MALAN BL (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2016] 6 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 03-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 512 
SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA 
v. 
MALAN Bl (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ANR. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2875-2879 of2010) 
OCTOBER 03, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.100, Or. XL! rr. 23, 23-A 
and 25 - Two suits by appellants against re5pondents [one for their 
eviction from the suit land (tenanted premises) and the other for 
money decree towards damages for use and occupation of suit land] 
- Three suits were filed by the respondents [first for declaration of 
their ownership by adverse possession against Government; second 
for injunction restraining Electricity Board for disconnecting 
electricity supply, and third against the Municipality] - Trial court 
decreed the suits of appellants holding that they have established 
land-lord and tenant relationship while the respondents have jailed 
to establish their title over the suit land - Order of trial court affirmed 
by first appellate Court - High Court allowed the second appeals 
and remanded the cases to trial court for fresh trial - On appeal, 
held: The questions formulated by High Court cannot be regarded 
as satisfying the test of being 'substantial questions of law' within 
meaning of s.100 as they were neither debatable nor arguable -
The concurrent findings on facts, on due appreciation of evidence 
by two courts, were binding on High Court - The High Court also 
did not have jurisdiction to remand the case for denovo trial - High 
Court neither formulated any question as regards the remand nor 
did any party raise this ground complaining about the proceedings 
in the lower courts - Power of appellate court to remand a case to 
subordinate court is contained in Or. XL! rr.23, 23-A and 25 - The 
Court is required to record reason as to why it has taken course to 
any out of the three rules for remanding the case - Ihere is no error 
in the judgment of first appellate court which rightly upheld decree 
of trial court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The questions formulated by High Court cannot 
512 
SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA v. MALAN BI (DEAD) BY L.RS. & 
513 
ANR. ETC. 
be regarded as satisfying the test of being a "substantial questions 
A 
of law" within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. These 
questions are essentially questions of fact. In any event, the 
second appeal did not involve any substantial questions of law as 
contemplated under Section 100 of CPC and lastly no case was 
made out by the respondents before the High Court for remanding· B 
of the case to the trial court for de novo trial in all the civil suits. 
[Para 27] [526-F-G] 
1.2 When the trial court and the first appellate court on 
appreciation of evidence concurrently held in three civil suits 
filed by the respondents that they failed to prove their title over 
the suit-land and further in two civil suits filed by the appellants 
that they were able to establish their relationship of landlord and 
tenant in relation to the suit-land, such findings, were binding on 
the High Court being concurrent in nature. [Para 28] [526-G-H; 
527-A) 
1.3 None of the findings of the two courts below were 
perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever come 
to such conclusion and that these findings were not in conflict 
with any provision of law governing the issue and that the findings 
were also not against the pleadings or evidence. In this view of 
the matter, these findings were not capable of being set aside by 
the High Court in exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction 
under Section 100 CPC, rather they were binding on the High 
Court. [Para 29) [527-B-C] 
1.4 Sine qull non for admitting the second appeal was 
existence of "substatJtial question of law in the case" and 
therefore unless the questiQM-iramed were debatable, or/and 
arguable or/and involving any legal question, the High Court had 
no jurisdiction to formulate such questions treating them to ·be 
substantial question oflaw. The questions formulated were neither 
debatable nor arguable and nor did they involve any question of 
law which could be said toarlse in the case. Indeed the High 
Court had the jurisdiction under sub-Section (5) of Section 100 
of CPC to examine at the time of hearing as to whether the 
questions framed were substantial questions of law or not and 
whether they arose out of the case, but the High Court failed to 
do so. [Para 30) [527-C-E] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
514 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORT

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