Vijay Arjun Bhagat & Ors. v. Nana Laxman Tapkire & Ors.
Background
The appellants (plaintiffs) had sued claiming certain properties were their ancestral/private property and not trust property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, the first Appellate Court (District Judge) reversed and decreed in the plaintiffs' favour, and the High Court, in a Second Appeal, reversed again and restored the dismissal, but did so on two "substantial questions of law" that it framed for the first time only in its final judgment, not at the admission stage as Section 100 CPC requires. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court against this High Court decision.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under Section 100 CPC, a High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is confined to the substantial questions of law it formulates at the admission stage (or, if additional questions are needed later, only after giving reasons and allowing the parties a chance to be heard). Here, the High Court had framed six questions at admission but decided the case on two entirely different questions sprung for the first time in the final judgment, denying the appellants any opportunity to address the court on them: a jurisdictional error and a breach of natural justice. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and sent the second appeal back to the High Court to be decided afresh on merits strictly within the proper Section 100 procedure, expressly directing that it be done expeditiously given its age; the Supreme Court itself did not comment on who should ultimately win the underlying property dispute.
Lesson Learnt
A High Court cannot decide a second appeal on legal questions it never formally framed and gave the parties a chance to argue, doing so denies a fair hearing and can get the whole judgment set aside and sent back, regardless of which side might otherwise seem to have the stronger case on the facts.