- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S Karayogam And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent instituted a suit seeking (i) a declaration of title over an open space alleged to be appurtenant to a temple and (ii) an injunction restraining the State of Kerala from constructing any building on that land. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed that dismissal. In second appeal, however, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala reversed the concurrent findings, granted a perpetual injunction against further construction, issued a mandatory injunction to preserve the land as a maidan for temple use, and allowed completion only of a village-office record room.
The State of Kerala challenged this High Court judgment before the Supreme Court. A Panchayat later sought to file a separate special-leave petition against the same High Court order and to be impleaded.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could reverse concurrent findings of fact without first formulating a substantial question of law.
- Consequentially, whether the impugned mandatory and perpetual injunctions could stand when issued in the absence of such jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties
State of Kerala (Appellant)
- Contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because no substantial question of law was framed under Section 100 CPC.
Respondent (Original Plaintiff)
- Submitted that a substantial question of law could be discerned from the record and requested an opportunity to formulate it before the High Court.
Vadavucode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayat (Proposed Petitioner)
- Sought leave to challenge the same High Court order and requested that consequential directions also be set aside.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that Section 100 CPC permits interference in second appeal only on a substantial question of law. Because the learned Single Judge did not formulate any such question, the High Court acted without jurisdiction in re-appreciating facts and granting injunctions. Both sides conceded that no substantial question had been framed. In view of this procedural defect, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to evaluate the merits of the underlying property dispute.
The Court therefore set aside the High Court judgment in its entirety. Acknowledging the respondent’s request, it allowed the matter to be remitted so that the High Court could, after hearing both parties, determine whether any substantial question of law arises and, if so, decide it. The Court noted that once the main order is quashed, any consequential orders automatically fall. It permitted the Panchayat to seek impleadment in the remanded second appeal instead of pursuing a separate special-leave petition.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted Second Appeal No. — to the High Court of Kerala for fresh disposal in accordance with Section 100 CPC.
Implications: The parties must re-argue the second appeal before the High Court, which must first identify and formulate any substantial question(s) of law before proceeding. The Panchayat may apply for impleadment in that proceeding. No new substantive precedent was created; the decision reinforces the procedural mandate of Section 100 CPC.
K.T Thomas, J.—
Civil Appeal No. 3441 of 2001
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The impugned judgment was rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in a second appeal. The respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction restraining the defendant from constructing any building in the open space alleged to be abutting a temple. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. But the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure interfered with the concurrent findings on facts and granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and the local authorities of the State of Kerala from putting up any fresh construction in the suit property. The learned Single Judge issued a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to preserve the suit property as a maidan to be used for the purposes of the temple. It was further ordered that the defendant State of Kerala is permitted only to complete the construction of the record room of the village office at the south-western corner of the maidan.
4. It is the said judgment of the learned Single Judge which the State of Kerala has now challenged in the appeal.
5. Both sides have advanced several contentions in the appeal petition as also in the counter-affidavit filed. We refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as we propose to remit the second appeal for disposal afresh. We have noted that the learned Single Judge has not formulated any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, which alone would have clothed the High Court with jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC to deal with a second appeal. This Court has stated time and again that unless the High Court is satisfied that there is a substantial question of law, jurisdiction for second appeal cannot be exercised. It is unnecessary to cite the authorities on that aspect as it has now become well-nigh settled. Both sides agreed that no substantial question of law has been formulated by the learned Single Judge. If so, the learned Single Judge ought to have proceeded further.
6. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that substantial question of law can be discerned from the materials. He pleaded for a chance to formulate such question of law. In the interest of justice, we feel that the second appeal can be disposed of by the High Court afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to both sides. If any question of law could be so discerned, it has then to be decided whether it is substantial enough for acquiring jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
7. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of and the second appeal is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. … of 2001 (CC No. 3388)
8. Vadavucode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayat got itself impleaded as a party and made a bid to file a special leave petition in challenge of the same judgment which we set aside. In view of the judgment we now pronounced, it is unnecessary to consider the special leave petition sought to be filed by the said Panchayat. However, we permit the said Panchayat to move the High Court for getting itself impleaded in the second appeal.
9. Mr E.M.S Anam, learned counsel for the petitioner Vadavucode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayat submitted that pursuant to the impugned order learned Single Judge had passed consequential orders and he pleads that this Court may interfere with the said consequential orders also. We find it unnecessary because when once the main impugned order is set aside any other consequential order made pursuant to the same would automatically go.
10. With these observations this matter is disposed of.
Alert