1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 8698   OF 2002

GOBIND RAM SHARMA ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGHANIA AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the

High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Patna in  Second  Appeal  No.  436/1986  whereby  and

whereunder the judgment dated 17.3.1986 and the judgment and order dated 8.4.1986

passed by the Trial Court in Title Appeal No.16/99 of 1984-85 affirming the judgment

and order dated 19.5.1984 passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 68/1982, was set

aside.   

The property in suit belonged to one Ram Chandra Singhania. He had four

sons,  namely,  Chhedilal,  Madan Lal,  Ram Awtar and Haridwar.   Madan Lal  and

Ram  Awtar  were  the  original  plaintiffs.   Indisputably,  on  or  about  25.7.1995,

Haridwar – original  defendant No.2, purported to have executed a deed of  gift  in

favour of the appellant  herein.  The original  plaintiffs  filed a suit,  inter alia,  for a

declaration that the said deed of gift was void.  They in support of their plea, inter

2

alia, raised a contention that there had been a family arrangement in the year 1950 as

also in the year 1954. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge holding

that  the  deed  of  gift  was  legally  binding  on  the  plaintiff.  The  appeal  preferred

thereagainst was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bettiah.  

A second appeal was filed before the High Court on 24.7.1986.  On or about

21.3.1987, the High Court formulated the following substantial questions of law:

(i)  Whether family arrangement could be discarded only on the ground that

the same was not effected by registered document, even though it was the

admitted case of the parties?

(ii) Whether the Court below were correct in giving finding that the plaintiffs

appellants have not supported their case of possession by filing even a chit

of paper?  

In the impugned judgment, however, the learned Judge did not approach the

second appeal from the point of view that only the substantial questions of law were

required to be answered; for all  intent and purport,  it reopened the entire suit.  It

proceeded on the basis as if the parties had adduced evidence beyond their respective

pleadings. It entered into the realm of appreciation of evidence.   

The discussions  contained in  the judgment were not  kept  confined to the

substantial questions of law formulated.  The High Court, for all intent and purport,

failed to keep its jurisdiction confined within the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5)

of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The proviso appended to sub-

3

section (5) of Section 100 of CPC stipulates that in the event the High Court intends to

formulate any other substantial question of law, it may not be precluded from doing

so,  but  therefor,  an opportunity of  hearing is  to be granted to the respondent.  As

indicated hereinbefore,  the High Court reopened all  the issues arising between the

parties in the suit, without formulating appropriate substantial questions of law.

The discussion in the impugned judgment had thus not been kept confined to

the question of law which, in our opinion, was beyond the limited jurisdiction of the

High Court which it exercises in terms of Section 100 of CPC.          

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained

which is  set aside  and the matter is  remitted to the  High Court  for consideration

thereof afresh and for formulating substantial question of law, if any, arising therein.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

Keeping in view the fact that the matter is an old one, we would request the

High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of the matter as expeditiously as

possible.

..........................J (S.B. SINHA)

..........................J   (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)    NEW DELHI, APRIL 24, 2008.