Holding

A substantial question of law did arise, so the second appeal could not be dismissed and must be heard afresh by the High Court.

Summary

Santosh Hazari filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and a permanent injunction against Purushottam Tiwar, alleging dispossession of a portion of his land. The trial court decreed in favour of Hazari, rejecting the defendant's claim of adverse possession and the defence of limitation. The Additional District Judge reversed the trial court's judgment, leading Hazari to file a second appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed the appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 of the CPC. The Supreme Court held that a substantial question of law did arise, particularly concerning the correctness of the appellate court's finding on adverse possession and limitation, and that the High Court had failed to give Hazari an opportunity to frame the question as required. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing of the second appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a substantial question of law arose in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal for lack of a substantial question of law.
Whether the appellate court was correct in holding that the suit was barred by limitation and that the defendant's claim of adverse possession was established.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976
Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 65

Subjects

second appealsubstantial question of lawSection 100 CPCadverse possessionlimitation perioddeclaration of titlepossessioninjunctionappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

A SANTOSH HAZARl
v. •
PURUSHOTTAM TIWARl (DEAD) BY LRS.

FEBRUARY 8, 2001

B (DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND BRJJESH KUMAR, JJ.]
...
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

Section JOO-Second appeal-Scope of-Held, j11risdic1ion of the High
c Court /u hear a second appeal is restricted lo substantial queslion of la\11
involved in the case-Substantial question of la\V involved in the appeal not
stwed in lhe me111vrundum ofsecond appeal-Dismissal hy High Court holding ~
'
l~

that no question of la\11 arose for determinaliun-legality of-Held, an
opport11ni1y lo fi"ame such queslion should have been afforded lo the appellant
unless the deficiency was brought to lhe notice of the appellant by lhe
D Regislry or the Court and yet lhe appellant had persisted in his default--
Subslantial question of law fi"amed-Case remilted back to High Courl for
hearing and deciding the second appeal afresh

Subs1antial queslion of law-Meaning of-Held, to be 'subslantial', a
-~
question of law must be debatable, not previously sellled by law of the land
E
or a binding precedenl and must have a material bearing on the decision
of the case, in su far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned-
It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether a question
of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not.

F First appeal-Firs/ appellate courl-Duty as a court of first appeal-
Exercise of-Principles governing. staled-Held, the whole case being open
for rehearing both on questions of fact and law, lhe judgement of the first
appellate court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record
findings supported by reasons on all the issues arising.

G Appellant-plaintiff was allegedly dispossessed by the respondent-
defendant from his possession over certain area of the land out of the suit +
property. Hence the appellant-plaintiff filed a suitfor
declaration of title and
recovery of possession and issuance of permanent injunction restraining the
respondent-defendant from interfering with his possession over the suit ~
property. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that ownership in the suit
H 948
SANTOSH HAZARl v. P. TIWARl 949
property vested in the appellant-plaintiff and the respondent-defendant had A
forcibly occupied the disputed area. The respondent-defendant's plea of adverse
possession and the suit being barred by limitation, was negatived. The
respondent-defendant preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Additional
District Judge thereby reversing the judgement and decree of the Trial Court.
The appellant-plaintiff preferred a second appeal which was dismissed in B
limine by the tiigh Court holding that no substantial question of law arose
for determination. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The first appellate Court did not discharge the duty cast on
it as a Court of first appeal. The High Court having noticed failure on the c
part of the appellant in not discharging the statutory obligation cast on him
Jr. by sub-Section (3) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on account
of the substantial question of law involved in the appeal having not been
stated, ordinarily an opportunity to frame such question should have been
afforded to the appellant unless the deficiency was brought to the notice of
D
the appellant previously by the High Court Registry or the Court and yet the
appellant had persisted in his default. That was not done. A substantial question
of law does arise as involved in the case. The case is, thus, remitted back to
>...
the High Court for hearing and deciding the second appeal afresh.
(957-F-H; 958-8]
E
2.1. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure restricts the jurisdiction
of the High Court to hear a second appeal only on 'substantial question of law
involved in the case.' Such questions or question may be the one proposed by
). the appellant or may be any other question which though not proposed by the
appellant yet in the opinion of the High Court arises as involved in the case
and is substantial in nature. lnspite of a substantial question of law F
determining the scope of hearing of second appeal having been formulated by
the High Court, its power to hear the appeal on any other substantial question
of law, not earlier formulate!! by it, is not taken away subject to the twin
conditions being satisfied : (i) the High Court feels satisfied that the case
involves such question, and (ii) the High Court records reasons for its such G
+- satisfaction. (953-E-F-G-H(

Kshitish Chandra Purkail v. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors., I 1997] 5
SCC 438; Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami, (1997( 4 SCC
713 and Kandi/a Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., (1999( 3
sec 722, referred to. H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] I S.C.R.

A 2.2. The word substantial, as qualifying 'question of law,' means -of k
having substance, essential, re,al, of sound worth, important or considerable.
It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with-technical, of no
substance or consequence, or academic merely. To be 'substantial,' a question
of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding
B precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if
answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are
concerned. To be a question of law 'involving in the case' there must be first
a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from
the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be
necessary to decide that question oflaw for a just and proper decision of the
C case. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not.
1954-E; 955-G-H; 956-AI

Guran Diua & Anr. v. T Ram Ditta, AIR (1928) Privy Council 172; Sir
Chuni!al V. Mehta & Sons ltd. v. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing
D Co. ltd., (1962) Supp. 3 SCR 549; Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju,
ILR (1952) Madras 264; Deputy Commr., Hardoi, lncharge Court of Wards
and Bharawan Estate v. Rama Krishna Narain & Ors., AIR (1953) SC 521,
referred to.

3. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted
E by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact
and law. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its
conscious application of mind, and record findings supported hy reasons, on
all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the
parties for decision of the appellate Court. The first appellate Court continues,
as before, to be a final Court of facts. The first appellate Court is also a final
F Court of law because the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal
ceases to be available to correct the errors of law even on questions of law
unless such question of law be a substantial one.1956-D-E; 957-D-EI

Girijanandini Devi & Ors. v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR !19671
SC 1124; Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai & Ors., AIR 119831 SC 114
G and Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh & 1'-
0rs., AIR 119511 SC 120, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1117 of
2001. .

H From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.8.98 of the Madhya Pradesh
SANTOSH HAZARI v. P. TIWARI [LAHOTL .I.] 951
High Court in S.A. No. 314 of 1995. A
Jos Chiramal and S.B. Upadhyay for the Appella.11.

K.N. Shukla, Ms. Sushi la Shukla, B.N. Jha and Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the
Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted.

On 4.3.1983, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and
recovery of possession and issuance of permanent preventive injunction C
restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff
over the suit property described as khasra No. 41 /I area 1.09 acres (0.441
hectares) situated in Village Patharia, District Damoh. According to the plaintiff,
the defendant had illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from his possession
over I IOx80 ft. area ofland o·ut of the suit property on 20.8.1981. The defendant D
in his written statement denied all material averments and in addition submitted
that the defendant has been in possession of the suit property since 1940-
1941, i.e., since the times of his grand father. The suit filed by the plaintiff was
alleged to have been barred by limitation in view of the same having been
filed more than 12 years after the date of dispossession of the plaintiff A plea
of the defendant having acquired title by adverse possession was also raised E
in the written statement.

The trial Court, on an evaluation of oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the parties, found that ownership in the suit property vested in
the plaintiff and the defendant had forcibly occupied the disputed area of
11 Ox80 ft. sometime in the year 1980-81. The defendant's plea of adverse F
possession was negatived and the suit filed by the plaintiff was held to have
been filed within the period of limitation. On these findings the suit was
decreed in its entirety.

The defendant preferred an appeal. The learned Additional District G
Judge held that in so far as ownership over the suit land is concerned, the
same vested in the plaintiff. However, he found that the possession of the
land was given to the plaintiff by the State Government on 6.11.68 but the
plaintiff has not shown to have taken any steps for dispossessing the
defendant and the plea raised by the plaintiff of the defendant having forcibly
occupied the land in dispute on 20.8.1981 did not appear to be tenable. On H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] I S.C.R.

A these findings the appeal was· allowed and in reversal of the judgment and ...\-
decree of the trial Court the suit was directed to be dismissed.

The plaintiff preferred a second appeal which has been dismissed in
limine by the High Court passing a brief order that the matter stood concluded
by findings of fact and no substantial question of law arose for determination.
B The aggrieved plaintiff has filed this appeal by special leave.

On 4.5.1999 this Court directed a notice to be issued to the defendant-
respondent on the limited question as to why the matter should not be
remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeal after framing the question
c of law.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court. We have also
perused the application dated 12.1.2001 filed in this Court on behalf of the
plaintiff-appellant setting out the substantial questions of law which in his
D submission arose in the case and on which the High Court ought to have
heard the appeal.

What is a substantial question of law involved in the case? Section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, 'the code', for short) as

-
E substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 (104 of
1976) w.e.f. 1.2.1977 reads as under:-

"JOO. Second Appeal.

(I) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code
or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall
F
lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any
Court subordinate to the High Court, ifthe High Court is satisfied
that the case involves a substantial question of law.
(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree
passed ex-parte.
G
(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall +
precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the
appeal.
(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of
H law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
SANTOSH HAZARI v. P. TIWARI [LAHOTI, J.] 953
(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the A
respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to
argue that the case does not involve such question:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take
away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be
recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not B
formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question."

The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without
formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it
does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on C
Court. The existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for
the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code.
[See Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors., [I 997] 5
SCC 438; Panchugopa/ Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami, [1997] 4 SCC 713
and Kandi/a Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., [1999] 3 SCC
m. D
At the very outset we may point out that the memo of second appeal
filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the High Court suffered from a serious
infirmity. Section 100 of the Code, as amended in 1976, restricts the jurisdiction
of the High Court to hear a second appeal only on 'substantial question of E
law involved in the case'. An obligation is cast on the appellant to precisely
state in the memorandum of appeal the substantial question of law involved
in the appeal and which the appellant proposes to urge before the High Court.
The High Court must be satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved
in the case and such question has then to be formulated by the High Court.
Such questions or question may be the one proposed by the appellant or may F
be any other question which though not proposed by the appellant yet in the
opinion of the High Court arises as involved in the case and is substantial
in nature. At the hearing of the appeal, the scope of hearing is circumscribed
by the question so formulated by the High Court. The respondent is at liberty
to show that the question formulated by the High Court was not involved in G
the case. In spite of a substantial question of law determining the scope of
hearing of second appeal having been formulated by the High Court, its
+ power to hear the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not earlier
formulated by it, is not taken away subject to the twin conditions being
satisfied: (i) the High Court feels satisfied that the case involves such question,
and (ii) the High Court records reasons for its such satisfaction. H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 1 S.C.R.

A Even under the old Section I 00 of the Code (pre-1976 amendment), a
pure finding of fact was not open to challenge before the High Court in
~-
second appeal. However the Law Commission noticed a plethora of conflicting
judgments. It noted that in dealing with second appeals, the Courts were
devising and successfully adopting several concepts such as, a mixed question
B of fact and law, a legal inference to be drawn from facts proved, and even the
point that the case has not been properly approached by the Courts below.
This was creating confusion in the minds of the public as to the legitimate
scope of second appeal under S.100 and had burdened the High Courts with
an unnecessarily large number of second appeals. Section I00 was, therefore,
suggested to be amended so as to provide that the right of second appeal
C should be confined to cases where a question of law is involved and such
question of law is a substantial one. (See Statement of Objects and Reasons).
The Select C0mmittee to which the Amendment Bill was referred felt that the
scope of second appeals should be restricted so that litigations may not drag
on for a long period. Reasons, of course, are not required to be stated for
formulating any question of law under sub-section(4) of Section 100 of the
D Code; though such reasons are to be recorded under proviso to sub-section
(5) while exercising power to hear on any other substantial question of law,
other than the one formulated under sub- section(4).

The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended
E Section I 00 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying
'question of law', means -of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth,
important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in
contradistinction with - technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic
merely. However, it is clear that the Legislature has chosen not to qualify the
scope of 'substantial question of law' by suffixing the words 'of general
-
F importance' as has been done in many other provisions such as Section I 09
of the Code or Article 133(l)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question
of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a
substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta & Anr. v.
T. Ram Ditta, AIR ( 1928) Privy Council 172, the phrase 'substantial question
G of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110
of the C.P.C. (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for
consideration and Their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial
question of general. importance but a substantial question of law whkh was
involved in the case as between the parties. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons
ltd v. The Century Spinning and Manufacuring Co., ltd., (1962] Supp. 3
H SCR 549, the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view
SANTOSH HAZARI v. P. TIWARI (LAHOTI, .l.] 955
taken by a Full Bench of Madras High Cou1't in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. A
NQony Veeraju, JLR (1952) Madras 264:

" ........... when a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room
for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary
to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative view,
then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other B
hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the
highest Court or if the general principles to be applied in determining
the question are well settled and the only question was of applying
those principles to the particular fact of the case it would not be a
substantial question of law."
c
· and laid down the following test as proper test, for determining whether a
question of law raised in the case is substantial:

"The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in
the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of D
general public importance or whether it directly and substantially
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 by
the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty
or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled
by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in E
determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question
of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd
the question would not be a substantial question of law."

In Deputy Cnmmr., Hardo1; In charge Court of Wards, Bharawan Estate
v. Rama Krishna Narain & Ors., AIR (1953) SC 521, also it was held that a F
question of law of importance to the parties was a substantial question of law
entitling the appellant to certificate under (the then) Section 110 of the Code.

A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition
of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be 'substantial', a G
question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land
or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of
the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before
it are concerned. To be a question of law 'involving in the case' there must
be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should
emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] I S.C.R.

A it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper
decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the
High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root
of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each
case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case,
B or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a
judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all
stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.

A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that it has extensively
dealt with the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties for
C deciding the issues on which the parties went to trial. It also found that in
support of his plea of adverse possession on the disputed land, the defendant
did not produce any documentary evidence while the oral evidence adduced
by the defendant was conflicting in nature and hence unworthy of reliance.
The first appeliate Court has, in a very cryptic manner, reversed the finding
on question of possession and dispossession as alleged by the plaintiff as
D also on the question of adverse possession as pleaded by the defendant. The
appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial
Court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by
law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact
and law. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its
E conscious application of mind, and record findings supported by reasons, on
all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by
the parties for decision of the appellate Court. The task of an appellate Court
affirming the findings of the trial Court is an easier one. The appellate Court
agreeing with the view of the trial Court need not restate the effect of the
evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court; expression of
F general agreement with reasons given by the Court, decision of which is ...f
under appeal, would ordinarily suffice (See Girijanandini Devi & Ors. v.
Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR (1967) SC 1124). We would, however, like
to sound a note of caution. Expression of general agreement with the findings
recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage
G adopted by the appellate Court for shirking the duty cast on it. While writing
a judgment of reversal, the appellate Court must remain conscious of two
principles. Firstly, the findings of fact based on conflicting evidence arrived
at by the trial Court must weigh with the appellate Court, more so when the
findings are based on oral evidence recorded by the same presiding Judge
who authors the judgment. This certainly does not mean that when an appeal
H lies on facts, the appellate Court is not competent to reverse a finding of fact
SANTOSH HAZARI v. P. TIWARI [LAHOTL J.] 957
arrived at by the trial Judge. As a matter of law if the appraisal of the evidence A
by the trial Court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible
evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the appellate Court is entitled to
interfere with the finding of fact (See Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai
& Ors., AIR (1983) SC 114. The rule is-and it is nothing more than a rule
of practice-that when there is conflict of oral evidence of the parties on any
matter in issue and the decision hinges upon the credibility of witnesses, then B
unless there is some special feature about the evidence of a particular witness
which has escaped the trial Judge's notice or there is a sufficient balance of
improbability to displace his opinion as to where the credibility lies, the
appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of the trial Judge on a
question of fact. (See Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v . .Jwaleshwari Pratap C
Narain Singh & Ors., AIR (1951) SC 120. Secondly, while reversing a finding
of fact the appellate Court must come into close quarters with the reasoning
assigned by the trial Court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at
a different finding. This would satisfy the Court hearing a further appeal that
the first appellate Court had discharged the duty expected of it. We need only
remind the first appellate Courts of the additional obligation cast on them by D
the scheme of the present Section I 00 substituted in the Code. The first
appellate Court continues, as before, to be a final Court of facts; pure findings
of fact remain immune from challenge before the High Court in second appeal.
Now the first appellate Court is also a final Court of law in the sense that its
decision on a question of law even if erroneous may not be vulnerable before E
the High Court in second appeal because the jurisdiction of the High Court
has now ceased to be available to correct the errors of law or the erroneous
findings of the first appellate Court even on questions of law unless such
question of law be a substantial one.

Reverting back to the facts of the case at hand, prima facie we find F
the first appellate Court did not discharge the duty cast on it as a Court of
first appeal. The High Court having noticed failure on the part of the appellant
in not discharging the statutory obligation cast on him by sub-section (3) of
Section I 00 of the Code, on account of the substantial question of law
involved in the appeal having not been stated, much less precisely, in the G
memorandum of second appeal, ordinarily an opportunity to frame such
question should have been afforded to the appellant unless the deficiency
was brought to the notice of the appellant previously by the High Court
Registry or the court and yet the appellant had persisted in his default. That
was not done. In our opinion, the following substantial question of law does
arise as involved in the case and worth being heard by the High Court: H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) l S.C.R.

A Whether on th'e pleadings and the material brought on record by the
defendant, 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, 1963, more so when such finding was
arrived at in reversal of the findings of the trial Court?
B
The appeal is allowed. The case is remitted back to the High Court for
hearing and deciding the second appeal afresh.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion either way on
any of the issues arising for decision in the case. We also make it clear that
C our framing the question of law involved in the appeal shall not take away
the jurisdiction of the High Court vesting in it under proviso to sub-section(5)
of Section 100 of the C.P.C. to formulate any other question of law involved
in the case. The second appeal shall be decided by the High Court uninfluenced'
by any of the observations made hereinabove which have been made solely
D to support our opinion that the appeal did not merit a summary dismissal by
the High Court.

The appeal stands disposed of in the terms stated hereinabove. No
order as to the costs.

E M.P. Appeal allowed.