CPC Case Brief – Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (first and second appeal principles)

Spread the love

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

Facts:

  • The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and issuance of a permanent preventive injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.

Issue

  • What is the substantial question of law in the case and whether High Court can hear the case?
  • Section 100 talks about the second appeal. 100 (3) says that substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under section 100.
  • In Rimmalapudi, the court laid down a test. The test for determining whether a question of law is substantial or not is whether it is of general public importance or whether it affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this court or is not free from any difficulty or calls for discussion.

Holding

  • The Court held that the substantial question of law existed in the case and High Court must have heard it. It stated the question as
  • “Whether on the pleadings and the material brought on record, the first appellate Court was right in holding that the case of adverse possession was made out by the defendant and the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed as barred by time under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, more so when such finding was arrived at in rehearsal of the findings of the trial Court?”
  • The second appeal of the plaintiff is allowed and the case is remitted back to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh.

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

 


Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *