In Brief
The plaintiff sought a declaration of title to mortgaged land, claiming the defendants had failed to redeem it. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court permitted additional evidence and found that only one-sixth of the mortgaged property was redeemed; since partial redemption does not redeem the entire property, it decreed the plaintiff's suit. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed this without framing substantial questions of law as required, and relied on a later mutation entry without addressing authenticity issues. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to comply with its statutory duty under Section 100 of the CPC to frame appropriate questions and decide on the contentious issues. The Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of proper legal principles.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.