Supreme Court Remands Eviction Case Due to Procedural Error: Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil vs. Tamilarasi (Dead) (2019)

Date of the Judgment: May 7, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 457

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a High Court frame substantial questions of law for the first time in the final judgment of a second appeal? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical procedural question in a civil appeal concerning an eviction suit. The Court found that the High Court of Judicature at Madras had erred by not framing substantial questions of law at the time of admitting the second appeal, as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This procedural lapse led the Supreme Court to remand the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with Justice Dinesh Maheshwari concurring.

Case Background

The case originated from a civil suit filed by the appellant, Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil, seeking the eviction of the respondent, Tamilarasi, from a property. The trial court, the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, decreed the suit in favor of the appellant on October 11, 2007. Tamilarasi then filed a first appeal before the Subordinate Judge, who dismissed the appeal on December 8, 2008, upholding the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, Tamilarasi filed a second appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower courts’ judgments and dismissing the appellant’s suit. This led to the appellant filing a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole respondent, Tamilarasi, passed away, and her legal representatives were brought on record by the Supreme Court’s order dated July 29, 2016.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially won the eviction suit in the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam. The respondent then appealed to the Subordinate Judge, who upheld the trial court’s decision. The respondent then filed a second appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which overturned the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the suit. This led to the appellant filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s decision hinges on the interpretation of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This section governs second appeals to the High Court. Section 100(1) states that a second appeal lies to the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Section 100(3) requires the appellant to precisely state the substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal. Crucially, Section 100(4) mandates that the High Court, if satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved, must formulate that question. Section 100(5) stipulates that the appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated. The proviso to Section 100(5) allows the High Court to frame additional questions of law at the time of the final hearing, but only for reasons to be recorded.

The relevant provisions of Section 100 of the CPC are as follows:

• “100. Second appeal.­ (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.”
• “(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.”
• “(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.”
• “(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub­section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court had erred in allowing the second appeal because it had not framed any substantial question of law at the time of admitting the appeal, as required by Section 100(4) of the CPC. Instead, the High Court framed the questions of law for the first time in the final judgment itself. The appellant contended that this procedure was contrary to the mandatory requirements of Section 100 of the CPC and caused prejudice to the appellant.

The respondent’s arguments are not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, it can be inferred that they likely defended the High Court’s decision and argued that the High Court had the power to frame questions of law even at the final stage of the judgment.

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in highlighting the procedural lapse by the High Court, which is a significant departure from the established legal procedure for second appeals under Section 100 of the CPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the second appeal filed by the defendant (original respondent herein).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the procedure followed by the High Court in deciding the second appeal. The Court found that the High Court had failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 100 of the CPC. Specifically, the High Court did not frame any substantial question of law at the time of admitting the appeal, as required by Section 100(4) of the CPC. Instead, the High Court framed the questions of law for the first time in the final judgment itself.

The Supreme Court held that this procedure was contrary to the scheme of Section 100 of the CPC and caused prejudice to the respondent because they could not object to the framing of the substantial question of law. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide a second appeal is confined to the questions framed under Section 100(4).

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should have framed the substantial questions of law at the time of admission of the appeal after hearing the appellant. The Court also noted that the High Court could have framed additional questions of law at the time of final hearing, but only after recording reasons for doing so, as per the proviso to Section 100(5) of the CPC.

The Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in Surat Singh (Dead) vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. [(2018) 4 SCC 562], which explained the procedure under Section 100 of the CPC. The Court also referred to the principle that when a statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only, citing Baru Ram vs. Parsanni (Smt.), AIR 1959 SC 93.

The Supreme Court also referred to Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179, which explained the scope, jurisdiction, and what constitutes a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Surat Singh (Dead) vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. [(2018) 4 SCC 562]: The Supreme Court followed this case, which explained the mandatory procedure under Section 100 of the CPC, emphasizing the need to frame substantial questions of law at the time of admission.
• Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179: The Supreme Court followed this case to emphasize the scope and jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals under Section 100 of CPC.
• Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The Supreme Court interpreted this provision to highlight the mandatory nature of framing substantial questions of law at the time of admission of the second appeal.
• Baru Ram vs. Parsanni (Smt.), AIR 1959 SC 93: The Supreme Court followed this case to reiterate that when a statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure strict adherence to the procedural requirements of Section 100 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s failure to frame substantial questions of law at the time of admitting the second appeal was a fundamental error that could not be overlooked. The Court’s reasoning was rooted in the principle that legal procedures must be followed meticulously to ensure fairness and justice. The Court also stressed the importance of the respondent’s right to know the substantial questions of law on which the appeal was admitted, so they can effectively present their case.

The Court’s decision was also influenced by the principle that when a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only. This principle was applied to the High Court’s failure to follow the procedure laid down in Section 100 of the CPC.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations, with a focus on the interpretation and application of Section 100 of the CPC. The factual aspects of the case were of secondary importance to the procedural error committed by the High Court.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the High Court could frame questions of law at the final stage, but rejected it because it was not in accordance with Section 100(4) of CPC and its proviso. The Court emphasized that the High Court could have framed additional questions of law at the time of the final hearing, but only after recording reasons for doing so, as per the proviso to Section 100(5) of the CPC, which was not done in this case.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that the High Court’s jurisdiction to decide a second appeal is confined to the questions framed under Section 100(4). The Court also emphasized that the respondent has a right to know the substantial questions of law on which the appeal was admitted, so they can effectively present their case.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s procedure was not in conformity with the mandatory requirements of Section 100 of the CPC and, therefore, the judgment was legally unsustainable.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “It is noticed that the High Court framed two substantial questions of law (see Para 7 of the impugned judgment) for the first time in the impugned judgment itself.”
• “In our considered opinion, the procedure and the manner in which the High Court decided the second appeal regardless of the fact whether it was allowed or dismissed cannot be countenanced. It is not in conformity with the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 100 of the CPC.”
• “The scheme of Section 100 is that once the High Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law, such question shall have to be framed under sub-section(4) of Section 100. It is the framing of the question which empowers the High Court to finally decide the appeal in accordance with the procedure prescribed under sub-section (5).”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts must frame substantial questions of law at the time of admitting a second appeal, as mandated by Section 100(4) of the CPC.
• ✓ Framing substantial questions of law for the first time in the final judgment is a procedural error that can lead to the judgment being set aside.
• ✓ Respondents in second appeals have a right to know the substantial questions of law on which the appeal was admitted.
• ✓ High Courts can frame additional questions of law at the time of final hearing, but only after recording reasons for doing so, as per the proviso to Section 100(5) of the CPC.
• ✓ Strict adherence to statutory procedures is essential for ensuring fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh in accordance with law. The High Court was directed to frame proper substantial questions of law after hearing the appellant and, if it finds that any substantial question(s) of law arises in the case, it will first formulate such question(s) and then accordingly decide the appeal finally on the question(s) framed in accordance with law. The Supreme Court also requested the High Court to decide the second appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must strictly adhere to the procedure laid down in Section 100 of the CPC while deciding second appeals. This includes framing substantial questions of law at the time of admission of the appeal. The judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of Section 100(4) and clarifies the procedural requirements for second appeals, ensuring that High Courts do not deviate from the prescribed legal framework. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but emphasizes the strict adherence to the existing legal procedure.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the High Court’s failure to follow the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 100 of the CPC, specifically the requirement to frame substantial questions of law at the time of admitting the second appeal. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings and clarifies the High Court’s obligations when dealing with second appeals.