Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchPartly allowed

Bokka Subba Rao v. Kukkala Balakrishna & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 1245 of 2008
Neutral Citation:[2008] 2 S.C.R. 753

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Tarun Chatterjee
  • Dalveer Bhandari
Judgment Date
2008-02-12
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal partly allowed; set aside the High Court's judgment in the second appeal; remand to the High Court for fresh decision on merits after formulating the substantial questions of law; High Court to decide within six months; no order as to costs.
Final Disposition
Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Bokka Subba Rao

Respondents

  • Kukkala Balakrishna & Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • A.T.M. Sampath
  • • T.S. Shamtha

Counsels for Respondents

  • • T.V. Ratnam

Case Synopsis & Summary

Bokka Subba Rao v. Kukkala Balakrishna & Ors. concerns procedure in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The respondents sued for declaration that Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was their absolute property and for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from taking possession. The suit was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed in the first appeal; however, in the High Court’s decision in the second appeal, the suit was decreed. The Supreme Court examines whether the High Court correctly exercised its powers in a second appeal without formulating substantial questions of law as required by Section 100 CPC. It emphasizes the established principle that, in second appeals, the High Court must formulate substantial questions of law before allowing the appeal and deciding on merits. In this case, no substantial questions of law were formulated, and the second appeal was allowed on that basis, which the Court finds incorrect. The judgment sets aside the High Court’s order, remitting the case back to the High Court for fresh decision on merits after formulating the substantial questions of law. The Court states it has not considered the merits of the appeal at this stage. The matter is to be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within six months from the copy of this order, and with no order as to costs. The appeal is partly allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • In second appeals, the High Court must formulate substantial questions of law before deciding on merits.
  • A catena of decisions of this Court establishes the requirement to formulate substantial questions of law in second appeals.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Not stated in the provided text.

Contentions of Respondents

Not stated in the provided text.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Bokka Subba Rao v. Kukkala Balakrishna & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

~ [2008] 2 S.C.R. 753 A ...;. ## BOKKA SUBBA RAO _v._ KUKKALA BALAKRISHNA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1245 of 2008) FEBRUARY 12, 2008 B # (TARUN CHATTERJEE & DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) ~ _Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; S. 100:_ _Second appeal_ - _Allowed by High Court without formulating substantial question of law- Correctness of- Held:_[c ] _Incorrect_ - _Matter remitted to High Court for formulating the substantial question of law and to decide on merits._ ... The issue which arose for determination in this appeal was as to whether the High Court was right in D deciding the matter without formulating the substantial question of law in second appeal in terms of S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court ~[...... ] HELD: 1.1 It is now well settled that the High Court in[E ] second appeal, before allowing the same, ought to have formulated the substantial questions of law and thereafter, to decide the same on consideration of such substantial questions of law. In this case, admittedly no such F substantial question of law had been formulated by the High Court, and the second appeal was allowed. That being the position, the judgment of the High Court passed in second appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High, Court for fresh decision on merits after formulating the substantial questions of law.[G ] (Para - 4) [754-G; 755-A] F ~ 1.2 _It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the appeal. (Para - 5) [755-C] 753 H _7(_ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. 754 A CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 1245 of 2008. _)>--_ B From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Second Appeal No. 1665 of 2004. A.TM. Sampath and T.S. Shamtha for the Appellant. T.V. Ratnam for the Respondents·. _)...__ ·i The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c **TARUN CHATTERJEE,** J. 1. Leave granted. 2. At the time of issuing notice to the special leave petition, this Court confined notice as to why the second appeal should not be rerpitted to the High Court for failure to formulate and D[decide the substantial question ][of ][law as required by Section ] 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. > 3. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for[,. ] declaration that Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was their absolute property, and for a perpetual injunction, restraining E[the respondents from obtaining possession ][of ][the said item. ] The suit was dismissed, which was affirmed in appeal. However, by the impugned judgment of the High Court passed in second appeal, the suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved by the, aforesaid judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at F Hyderabad, a special leave petition has been filed in respect _qt_ which leave has already been granted. j,.. > j,.. - 4 .. 1-::lavtng heard the learned counsel for the parties an~.· after examining the judgment of the High Court passed in the second appeal, we are of the view that the judgment in second G appeal of the High Court is liable to be set aside on a very short question. It is now well settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court in second appeal, before allowing the same, ought to have formulated the substantial questions of law and thereafter, to decide the same on consideration of such H substantial questions of law. In this case, admittedly no such ).,., 755 <B~KKA SUBBA RAO _v._ KUKKALA BALAKRISHNA & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] > • ... _... ~ substantial question of law had been formulated and thereafter, A the second appeal was allowed. That being the position, we set aside the judgment of the High Court passed in second appeal and remit the appeal back to the High Court for fresh decision after formulating the substantial questions of law and thereafter, to decide it on merits. B 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The second appeal is restored to its original file. The High Court is requested to dispose of the second appeal at an early date preferably within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it. We make it clear that we[c ] have not gone into the merits of· the appeal which shall be decided after formulating the substantial questions of law and then to decide the second appeal in accordance with law. 6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated D above. There will be no order as to costs. S.K.S. Appeal partly allowed.