REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL Nos.2918­2921 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.35578­35581 of 2015)

Tanuku Taluk Village Officers’ Association  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Tanuku Municipality & Ors. Etc.       ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final

judgment and  order  dated  01.05.2015  passed  by

the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the

1 1

State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

in Second Appeal Nos.396 of 2004 and 414 of 2004

and C.R.P. Nos. 2069 of 2004 and 2073 of  2004,

whereby the High Court dismissed the said appeals

and Revision Petitions filed by the appellant herein.

3. A few facts need mention in brief  infra  for the

disposal of these appeals.

4. The appellant is the plaintiff and the

respondents are the  defendants in the civil suits

filed  by the  appellant  against the respondents in

relation to the suit land out of which these appeals

arise.

5. The appellant filed two civil suits against the

respondents in relation to the suit land. One was for

grant of permanent injunction (OS No.384 of 1986)

and the other was for recovery of arrears of rent (OS

No.226 of 1987).   Both the civil suits were filed in

the Court of 1st Additional District Munsif,  Tanuku.

2 2

6. By Judgment/decree dated 14.08.1996, the

Additional District Munsif decreed both the civil

suits.  

7. The plaintiff also filed a suit bearing RCC

No.5/1987 before the Rent Controller(Principal

District  Munsif),  Tanuku for  eviction of  defendant

No.1(respondent No.1 herein).   By order dated

20.01.1997, the Rent Controller passed a decree

and order in favour of the plaintiff and  directed

defendant  No.1 to  handover the suit land to the

plaintiff.  

8. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application

bearing I.A. No.268 of 1997 in R.C.C. No.5 of 1987

before the Rent Controller(Principal District Munsif),

Tanuku for releasing of cheque of Rs.42,400/­

deposited by respondent No.1 towards the rent and

arrears of the suit land.  By order dated 14.05.1997,

the Rent Controller dismissed the application filed

by the plaintiff.

3 3

9. The  plaintiff felt  aggrieved  by the  said  order

and filed C.M.A. No.13 of 1997 before the Court of

Senior Civil  Judge at Tanuku. Being aggrieved by

the order dated 20.01.1997 of the Rent

Controller(Principal District Munsif),   defendant

No.1 filed C.M.A. No.8 of 1997 before the Court of

Senior Civil Judge at Tanuku.

10. The Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku took up both

the matters together.  Vide order dated 21.01.2004,

the Senior Civil Judge allowed the application filed

by  defendant  No.1  and  set  aside the  order  dated

20.01.1997 passed by the Rent Controller(Principal

District Munsif) and dismissed the application filed

by the plaintiff by confirming the order dated

14.05.1997.

11. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.1996

of the  Additional  District  Munsif, defendant  No.1

filed appeals being A.S. Nos.69 & 70/1996 before

the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku.   Vide order dated

4 4

21.01.2004, the Senior Civil Judge allowed the

appeals and set aside the order dated 14.08.1996

passed by the Additional District Munsif.

12. The appellant (plaintiff) felt aggrieved by both

the orders of the First Appellate Court dated

21.01.2014   and filed two  Second  Appeals being

S.A. Nos.396 & 414 of 2004 and   C.R.P.Nos.2069

and 2073 of 2004 in the  High  Court of Andhra

Pradesh.  

13. The High Court admitted the Second Appeals

on the following three substantial questions of law.

“a) Whether the lower appellate court is right in holding that plaintiff society became defunct without there being any evidence to that effect ?

b) Whether the immovable property purchased by a registered society under registered sale deeds shall automatically vests with its admitted tenant without there being any deed of conveyance ?

c) Whether a tenant while admitting that it was only a tenant  inducted into possession for a rent can claim ownership over the very same property contrary to the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act ?”

5 5

14. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed

the appeals as well as revision petitions, which has

given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special

leave in this Court by the plaintiff.

15. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration in these appeals is whether the High

Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff's

Second Appeals.  

16. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting

aside the impugned order,   remand the case to the

High Court for the disposal of the second appeals

and revision petitions afresh on merits as indicated

below.

17. The need to remand the case to the High Court

has arisen because we find, on perusal of the

impugned order, that the High Court though

6 6

admitted the second appeals on the aforementioned

three substantial questions of law  but instead  of

answering these questions,   dismissed the appeals

by answering the question, which was not framed.  

18. In our view, the High Court failed to see that

the second appeal could be decided only on the

question(s) framed under Section 100 (4) of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred

to as “the Code”).  However, if at the time of hearing,

the  High  Court considers that the second  appeal

involves any other substantial question(s) of law, it

has the jurisdiction to frame such question(s) but

only by assigning the reasons.   At the same time,

the respondent is also entitled to argue at the time

of  hearing that the question(s)  though framed are

not the  substantial  question(s) of law  involved in

appeal (See Section 100 (5) of the  Code and its

proviso).

7 7

19. A fortiori, the disposal of the second appeal by

the High Court by answering the question(s) which

was/were not framed either at the time of admission

of the second  appeal  or framed without ensuring

compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed

in proviso to  Section  100 (5) of the  Code is not

legally sustainable.

20. As  mentioned  above, though  the  High Court

framed three substantial questions but did not

answer any of them on their respective merit either

way.  Instead the High Court dismissed the second

appeals on the question, which it had not framed.

The question on which the  High Court  dismissed

the appeals was in relation to the maintainability of

the  suit  and  this  question was  not  a  part  of the

three questions framed and nor the High Court

framed such question by taking recourse to powers

under Section 100(5) proviso of the Code.   

8 8

21. Learned counsel for the respondents made

sincere attempt in her submission that the findings

recorded by the High Court on its merit is just and

proper and  hence should not be disturbed.  We

cannot accept her submission in the light of what is

held above.   The respondents, therefore, will be at

liberty to raise such pleas before the High Court in

accordance with  law consequent  upon  the  matter

now being remanded to the High Court.  

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed and are accordingly allowed.   The

impugned order is set aside. The appeals are

remanded to the High Court for their hearing afresh

on the merits and in accordance with law. Needless

to say, the High Court will dispose of the appeals as

well  as the revision petitions because all the  four

matters were heard together and disposed of by a

common order keeping in view the requirements of

9 9

Section 100 of   the Code, as  mentioned above,

insofar as they relate to second appeals.

23. We have not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the case having formed an opinion to

remand the case to the High Court for their fresh

disposal on the merits as indicated above. The High

Court will accordingly decide the second appeals as

well as revision petitions uninfluenced by any

observations made in the impugned order and this

order.    

                                    .………...................................J.                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                       

    …...……..................................J.              [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; March 12, 2019

10 10