In Brief
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over a parcel of land. Both the trial court and first appellate court upheld their claim based on evidence of title and possession. The defendants appealed to the High Court, which allowed their second appeal and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred because it had framed only one substantial question of law (relating to res judicata from a prior unrelated litigation) but then impermissibly examined and overturned findings on ownership without framing any question of law on that issue. Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is strictly limited to the substantial question(s) of law properly framed. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for fresh decision after the High Court properly framed substantial question(s) of law on the ownership issue."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.