Page 1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.  3048  OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.27887/2010)

Sk. Bhikan  S/o Sk. Noor Mohd.        ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Mehamoodabee  w/o Sk. Afzal & Ors.      …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  09.02.2010  passed  by  the  High

Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay  Bench  at

Aurangabad  in  Second  Appeal  No.  875  of  2009

whereby the  second appeal  filed  by  the  appellant

herein was dismissed at the admission stage.

3) We  herein  set  out  the  facts,  in  brief,  to

appreciate the issue involved in this appeal.

1

Page 2

4) The appellant herein is the first defendant and

respondent  No.  1  herein  is  the  plaintiff  whereas

respondent Nos. 2 to 8 herein are defendant Nos. 2

to 8 in the suit.

5) The dispute in the appeal arises between the

members (brother and sister) of one Muslim family.

It relates to landed and house properties situated at

village  Satara,  District  Aurangabad  (Maharashtra)

as  detailed  in  Para  1  of  the  plaint  (hereinafter

referred to as the "suit property”).  

6) Respondent  No.  1  is  the  real  sister  of  the

appellant.   She  filed  a  civil  suit  against  the

appellant  and  respondent  Nos.  2  to  8  (proforma

defendants)  in  the  Court  of  IInd  Jt.  Civil  Judge

(J.D.)  at  Aurangabad  being  Civil  Suit  No.  120  of

1994 and prayed therein the relief  of  partition by

meets  and  bounds  of  the  suit  property  and,  in

consequence, also claimed her separate possession

in the suit property qua the appellant.  

2

Page 3

7) According to respondent  No.  1 (plaintiff),  the

suit property was owned by their late father Sheikh

Noor Mohd. and on his death, respondent No. 1, by

virtue  of  inheritance  and  being  one  of  his  legal

heirs,  got  share  in  the  suit  property  as  per  the

shares  defined  in  the  Mohammedan  Law.

Respondent No.1 alleged that since her father died

intestate  leaving  behind  respondent  No.1  and the

appellant being sister and brother, she is entitled to

claim partition of the suit property and its separate

possession  as  tenant  in  common  as  against  her

brother (appellant herein).

8) The  appellant  denied  the  case  set  up  by

respondent  No.1  and contended,  inter  alia, in  his

written  statement  that  the  suit  property  is  his

self-acquired  property  because  he  purchased  the

same by his own efforts by a registered sale deed

(Ex.P-1) and hence neither his late father had any

right,  title or interest in the said property and, in

consequence  thereof,  nor  respondent  No.1  could

3

Page 4

inherit any right, title or interest in the suit property

through her father as his legal heir. The appellant

also set up a title by alleging his adverse possession

over  the  suit  property  to  the  exclusion  of  all

including respondent No.1.

9) The  Trial  Court  framed  issues  and  parties

adduced  their  evidence.  By  a  judgment/decree

dated  24.12.1999,  the  Trial  Court  dismissed  the

suit  filed  by  respondent  No.1.   Respondent  No.1

(plaintiff),  felt  aggrieved,  filed  first  appeal  being

R.C.A.  No.  59  of  2000  before  the  District  Judge,

Aurangabad.  By  a  judgment/decree  dated

30.11.2001, the District Judge allowed the appeal

and  decreed  the  plaintiff's  suit  and  accordingly

passed  a  decree  for  partition  and  separate

possession  of  the  suit  property  in  favour  of

respondent No.1.  

10) Felt aggrieved, appellant (defendant No. 1) filed

second appeal being S.A. No.875 of 2009 before the

High  Court.  By  impugned  order,  the  High  Court

4

Page 5

dismissed the second appeal in limine observing that

the appeal does not involve any substantial question

of law.  

11) Felt  aggrieved,  defendant  No.1  has  filed  this

appeal by way of special leave before this Court.  

12) Heard  Mr.  Shyam  Divan,  learned  senior

counsel  for  the  appellant  and  Mr.  Makarand  D.

Adkar, learned counsel for the respondents.  

13) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

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

are  inclined  to  allow  the  appeal  and  remand  the

case  to  the  High  Court  for  deciding  the  second

appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.

14) Learned  Single  Judge  while  dismissing  the

appeal passed the following order:

“1)  The  appeal  is  filed  mainly  against  the findings  recorded  by  the  first  appeal  Court that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd share  in  the  suit  property  being  the daughter of Noor Mohammed who is also the father of the appellant.  The fact that Noor Mohammed, the father of the parties held the suit properties at the time of his death is not in  dispute  so  also  Noor  Mohammed  died without  leaving  a  testament  is  also  an admitted fact.  Thus, the appellant and the

5

Page 6

respondent  being  the  brother  and  sister would take the property, left behind by their father as per provisions of the Mohammedan Law.  The appellant, thus would get two parts of  the suit property, whereas the third part would  go  to  the  respondent  no.1-original plaintiff.

2) The  findings  recorded  by  the  learned Judge of  the  first  appeal  Court  are  cogent. No interference in them is called for.  There is no substantial  question of law, arising in this  appeal.   The  second  appeal  stands dismissed.   Consequently,  Civil  Application Nos.  4980  of  2005  and  9547  of  2003  also stand dismissed.”

15) As observed supra, we do not agree with the

reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High

Court  in  the  impugned order.   In  our  considered

view,  the  appeal  did  involve  the  substantial

questions  of  law  and,  therefore,  the  High  Court

should  have  admitted  the  appeal  by  first  framing

substantial questions of law arising in the case and

then after  giving notice  to the  respondents  for  its

final hearing as provided under Section 100 of the

Code of Civil  Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred

to as “the Code”) decided the appeal on merits.

6

Page 7

16) As a matter of fact, in our view, having regard

to the nature of controversy and the issues involved

regarding  ownership  based  on  interpretation  of

documents  (exhibits),  the  questions  did  constitute

substantial questions of law.

17) The questions as to whether the suit property

is  self-acquired  property  of  late  Sk.  Noor

Mohammad  and,  if  so,  whether  respondent  No.1

was  entitled  to  inherit  the  same  as  his  legal

representative in accordance with the shares defined

in the Mohammedan Law and secondly, whether the

suit  property  is  self-acquired  property  of  the

appellant  (defendant  No.1)  on  the  strength  of

documents filed by him and, if  so, whether it has

resulted in excluding  respondent No.1 to claim any

share  in  such  property  as  an  heir  of  Sk.  Noor

Mohammad, was required to be decided by framing

substantial  questions of law in the light of proved

documents filed by defendant No.1 because it was

his case that the suit property was his  self-acquired

7

Page 8

property.  The  High  Court  unfortunately  did  not

examine any document for deciding the ownership

issue in relation to the suit property.

18) When the Court is called upon to interpret the

documents  and  examine  its  effect,  it  involves

questions of  law.  It  is,  therefore,  obligatory upon

the High Court to decide such questions on merits.

In  this  case,  the  High  Court  could  do  so  after

framing  substantial  questions  of  law  as  required

under Section 100 of the Code. It was, however, not

done.

19) The High Court thus, in our view, committed

jurisdictional  error  when  it  dismissed  the  second

appeal  in  limine. We  cannot  countenance  the

approach of the High Court.  

20) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeal

succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set

aside. The case is now remanded to the High Court

for deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with

law.

8

Page 9

21) We, however, request the High Court to admit

the  second  appeal,  frame  appropriate  substantial

questions of law as required under Section 100 of

the Code, keeping in view the pleadings, findings of

the two courts below and the documents (exhibits).

Needless to say, the questions to be framed should

be  specific  with  reference  to  exhibits  and  the

findings of the two courts below.

22) Before  parting,  we  consider  it  proper  to

mention  here  that  we  have  not  expressed  any

opinion  on  the  merits  of  the  controversy  and

confined our inquiry only to examine whether the

second appeal involved any substantial question of

law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code?

23) We have noticed that  the dispute is  between

the members of one family.  It would, therefore, be

in the interest of family that efforts should be made

to settle the dispute amicably.  Indeed, it was also

stated by learned counsel for the parties before us

by giving some offer to each other.  We grant this

9

Page 10

liberty  to  renew  their  respective  offers  before  the

High Court and explore the possibility for amicable

settlement  before  finally  hearing  the  appeal

preferably within six months.

24) Record  of  the  case,  if  requisitioned,  be  sent

back to the High Court forthwith by the Registry.

               ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]

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

New Delhi; February 20, 2017  

1