Sayamma vs Basamma (Dead) by Lrs.

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The only question which arises for our consideration is, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the findings recorded by the Courts below without framing any substantial question of law under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code.

The respondent filed a title suit for possession of an agricultural land. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit was barred by time and the petitioner-defendant had perfected title by adverse possession. This was confirmed by the appellate Court. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment of the Courts below and decreed the suit of the respondent. By looking to the impugned order of the High Court, we find there is no substantial question of law framed as required under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code and without considering the same, the High Court has set aside the two Courts below judgment which in our opinion, without entering into the merits of the decision in second appeal, is unsustainable under law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and remitted back to the High Court to reconsider after framing the substantial question law if arises and dispose it of in accordance with law and also to consider the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3788 of 2000 entitled Basappa (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Puttappa (Dead) by L.Rs. decided on 14th July, 2000.

The present appeal, accordingly, succeeds and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Costs on the parties.