In Brief
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title to mortgaged property on the ground that the defendants had failed to redeem it. The trial court dismissed the suit based on a mutation entry and payment receipt. The first appellate court allowed the suit, finding only partial redemption (one-sixth) had occurred. The High Court reversed this without properly addressing the substantive issues or framing questions of law as required. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to discharge its mandatory duty to frame and decide substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC, particularly regarding the authenticity of disputed documents and the nature of the redemption. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.