Holding

The High Court acted illegally and exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a new plea without satisfying the requirements of Section 100(5) CPC; its judgment is set aside.

Summary

The plaintiff purchased land from Kshirodamani Dasi, who had sole occupancy rights, and sued the defendants for declaration of title and possession. The defendants, after having trespassed on the land, raised a new plea in a second appeal before the Calcutta High Court, claiming that under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the plaintiff's vendor was a deemed intermediary and the interest vested in the State, rendering the suit non‑maintainable. The High Court entertained this plea and dismissed the suit without formulating a "substantial question of law" as required by Section 100(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, nor giving the opposite party notice. The Supreme Court held that a new legal plea can be raised in a second appeal only if the court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved, records the reason, formulates the question, and affords the opposite party a fair opportunity to be heard. Finding that the High Court ignored these mandatory provisions, the Court set aside its judgment as illegal and allowed the appeal with costs.

Issues considered

Whether a new legal plea not raised in the courts below can be entertained in a second appeal under Section 100(5) CPC.
Whether the High Court complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 100 CPC, including formulation of a substantial question of law and giving notice to the opposite party.
Whether the suit was maintainable in view of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and the vendor's status as a deemed intermediary.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to set aside the lower courts' decrees on the basis of the new plea.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100(5)
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953s. 52, s. 6(1)(d)

Subjects

Second appealSection 100 CPCsubstantial question of lawjurisdictionnew legal pleaWest Bengal Estates Acquisition Actmaintainability of suitnatural justice

Judgment

KSHJTISH CHANDRA PURKAJT A
v.
SANTOSH KUMAR PURKAIT

MAY 7, 1997

[DR. A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA AND B
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100(5).

Second appeal-Substantial question of law-New legal plea C
raised-Such a specific plea was neither taken in the courts below nor any
precise issues framed in that behalf-High Court entertained the new plea and
decided the case without following the mandatory provisions of S. JOG-Held:
High Court should be ''satisfied" that the case involves a "substantial question
of law"' and not a mere "question of law''-Reason for pennitting the substan-
tial question of law to be raised should be "recorded''-Jt is the duty cast upon D
the High Court to fonnulate the substantial question of law and to put the
opposiie party 011 notice and give fair and proper opportunity to meet _the
point-In absence thereof hearing of second appeal is il/egal---High Coun
abdicated mandatory duty cast upon it and acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
E
The plaintiff-appellant purchased the suit property from one K who
had sole occupancy right. K possessed the land during the material period
through the 4th defendant with whom the land was settled annually on
advance rent. Subsequently, the principal defendants (defendants Nos. I
and 2) trespassed into the suit land and dispossessed the 4th defendant.
Thereatler, the trespassers got their names recorded as korfa tenants of F
the suit land at different fictitious jamas under K, the plaintiff's vendor,
in the R.S. record. The plaintiff's vendor K never settled the suit land by
granting Patta to or accepting any Kabuliyat from such trespassers. On
these and other averments the suit was tiled for declaration of plaintill's
title to the suit property and for recovery of the same from the defendants. G

Defendants I and 2 put forward the plea that the suit was not
maintainable, that they were cultivating tenants under the plaintill's ven-
dor 011 payment of advance rent and that the land was settled with them
on a permanent basis. The third defendant was the State. The Stak
pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and it had been unnecessarily H
201
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A impleaded. The trial court decreed the suit. The decree was affirmed in
appeal by the Subordinate Judge who also held that the defendants failed
to prove their tenancy raiyats in the suit land and the first defendant never
possessed the suit land in the previous years, as alleged. The courts
concurrently found that the plaintiff's vendor, K, was in possession of the
B suit land. The 3rd defendant only stated that the suit was not maintainable
and the State was an unnecessary party to the suit. But, in Second Appeal
the contesting defendants raised a new plea. It was to the effect that the
plaintiff's vendor, an occupancy raiyat, was a deemed intermediary under
Section 52 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, that she was
not in possession of the suit land on the date of vesting; that her interest
C in the suit property vested in the State and that the plaintiff was not
entitled to maintain the suit. Such a specific plea was neither taken in the
courts below nor any precise issues were framed in that behalf. The High
Court allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondent and held that the
suit was not maintainable and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved the
D appellant-plaintiff preferred the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. It is not every question of law that could be permitted
to be raised in second appeal. The parameters within which a new legal
E plea could be permitted to be raised, are specifically stated in sub-section
(5) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Under the proviso,
the Court should be "satisfied" that the case involves a "substantial question
of law" and not a mere "question of Law". The reason for permitting the
substantial question of law to be raised, should be "recorded" by the Court.
F Further, (a) it is the duty cast upon the High Court to formulate the
substantial question of law involved in the case even at the initial stage; ·
and (b) that in (exceptional) cases, at a later point of time, when the Court
exercises its jurisdiction under the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section
100 C.P.C. in formulating the substantial question of law, the opposite
party should be put on notice thereon and should be given a fair or proper
G opportunity to meet the point. Proceeding to hear the appeal without
formulating the substantial question of law imolved in the appeal is illegal
and is an abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court; and even
after the formulation of the substantial que~tion of law, if a fair or proper ..
opportunity is not afforded to the opposite side, it will amount to denial
H of natural _justice. The above parameters within which the High Court has
K.C. PURKAIT v. S.K.PURKAIT[PARIPOORNAN,J.] 203

to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. should always be borne A
in mind. [210-G-H; 211-A; 210-B; C]

Panchugopal Bama & Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors., [1997]
4 SCC 713; Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Centwy Spinning &
Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR (1962) SC 1314 and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
v. Union of India & Anr., AIR (1979) SC 798, relied on. B
1.2. In the present case, the High Court has totally ignored the
mand~tory provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. The High Court proceeded to
entertain. the new plea and rendered its decision without following the
mandat~ry provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. On this short ground, it must C
be held that judgment and decree of the High Court are illegal and in
excess of jurisdiction and so unsustainable and deserve to be set aside.
[211-B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4069 of
1986.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.82 of the Calcutta High
Court in Appeal from Appo:llate Decree No. 871 of 1981.

P.K. Chatterjee, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, Abhijeet Chatterjee, Ranjan
Mukherjee, Sukumar Ghose, Girish Chandra, Rathin Das and D.P. Muk- E
herjee for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PARIPOORNAN, J. The plaintiff in title suit No. 89 of 1958, Munsif
1st Court, Diamond Harbour, is the appellant. The defendants in the suit p
are the respondents. The suit was filed for declaration of plaintiffs title
and recovery of possession of the suit land (1.80 acre of land of Mouja
Durganagar P.S. Diamond Harbour). Incidentally, there was a prayer for
declaration that the entries in the R .S record are erroneous. The plaint -
property originally belonged to Haran Chandra Halder and Barada Prasad G
Halder, and by various gifts or other documents, Kshirodamani Dasi
., became the full owner of the suit property. The plaintiff purchased the suit
property from Kshirodamani Dasi by registered Deed dated 12 Baisakh,
1365, The plaintiffs vendor had sole occupancy right in 1.80 acres of land
in Mauja Durganagar. She possessed such land during the material period
through the 4th defendant with whom the land was settled annually on H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A advance rent. On 30th June, 1954, the principal defendants (defendant Nos.
1 and 2) trespassed into the suit land and dispossessed the 4th defendant.
Subsequently, the trespassers got their names recorded as korfa tenants of
the suit land at different fictitious jamas under Kshirodamani, the plaintiffs
vendor, in the R.S. record. The plaintiffs vendor Kshirodamani never
B settled the suit land by granting Patta to or accepting any Kabuliyat from
such trespassers. On these and other averments the suit was filed for
declaration of plaintiffs title to the suit .property and for recovery of the
same from the defendants.

2. The main contesting defendants are defendant Nos. 1 and 2. They
C put forward the plea that the suit was not maintainable that they were
cultivating as thika tenants, under the plaintiffs vendor on payment of
advance rent and the land was settled with them on a permanent basis. The
third defendant is the State of West Bengal. The State pleaded that the
suit was not maintainable and they have been up.necessarily impleaded. The
p trial court decreed the suit. It was found that the plaintiff has title to the
suit land and the defendants have no tenancy right in the property. The
plaintiff was held entitled to recover possession with mesne profits. The
suit was decreed on 28.2.1961. In the appeal filed by defendant No. 1 in
Title Appeal No. 362 of 1961 before the Sub-ordinate Judge, 8th Court,
Alipore, the judgment and decree of the Munsif was set aside and the suit
E was dismissed. The plaintiff filed S.A. 993/62 and assailed the judgment
and decree of the Sub-ordinate judge rendered in Title Appeal No. 362/61.
By judgment and decree dated 26.2.1976, the appeal was allowed and the
matter was remitted to the lower appellate court for a fresh disposal, in
accordance with .law. After remit, Title Appeal No. 362/61 was disposed of
F by Sub-ordinate Judge, 8th Court, Alipore on 12.2.1977. The appeal was
dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated
28.2.1961 except regarding the grant of declaration that the R.S. record of
raiyat is incorrect. The defendants assailed the concurrent judgments and
decrees of the courts below by filing Second Appeal No. 871/81 before the
High Court of Calcutta. The plaintiff filed a memoranda of cross-objections
G in the said Second Appeal against the deletion of the declaration that the

···.., .
R.S. record regarding the suit land is incorrect. The Second Appeal and
the Memoranda of Cross Objection were disposed of by a learned single
•
Judge of the Calcutta High Court by his judgment dated 30.11.1982. The
High Court allowed the Second Appeal filed by the contesting defendants
H and held that the suit for recovery of possession of the disputed land, i.e.,
K.C. PURKAIT v. S.K. PURKAIT [PARIPOORNAN, J.] 205

the suit land, is not maintainable and the suit was dismissed. It is thereafter, A
the plaintiff in the suit obtained special leave in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10083/83
by order passed by this Court dated 4.11.1986 and the consequent Civil
Appeal is before us.

3. We heard counsel. It is evident from the judgment of the High B
Court, impugned. herein, that the High Court set aside the concurrent
judgments and decrees of the lower courts on the basis of a new plea raised
before it. Appellant's counsel submitted that the High Court acted illegally
and committed an error of jurisdiction in entertaining a new plea in Second
Appeal, without complying with the provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. as
amended. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the new plea raised C
before the High Court was a question of law and the Court acted within
its jurisdiction in entertaining the said question of law and in disposing of
the Second Appeal on that basis.

4. In order to appreciate the rival pleas urged before us regarding D
the legality and propriety of the disposal of the Second appeal by the High
Court few broad facts of the case should be borne in mind. As stated, the
suit was one for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the
suit property. The plaintiff in the suit possessed the land through the 4th
defendant with whom the land was settled annually. The contesting (prin-
cipal) defendants trespassed into the suit land and dispossessed the 4th E
defendant on 30.6.1954. The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953,
hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' - came into force on 10.4.1956. The trial
court decreed the plaintiffs suit. It was also found that the defendants
failed to establish their case, that they took settlement of the land in the
suit from the plaintiffs vendor, Kshirodamani. Kshirodamani was found to F
be in possession of the suit land. The decree so passed by the trial court
was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sub-ordinate judge who also held
that the defendants failed to prove their tenancy raiyats in the suit land and
the first defendant never possessed the suit land in the previous years, as
alleged. The Courts concurrently found that the plaintiffs vendor,
Kshirodamani was in possession of the suit land. The 3rd defendant, State G
of West Bengal only stated that the suit is not mjlintainable and the' State
is an unnecessary party to the suit. But, in Second Appeal the contesting
defendants raised a new plea. It was to the effect that the Act came into
force on 10.4.1956. On that day, the right and interest of the plaintiff which
was only as an occupancy raiyat, vested in the State. On the date of vesting H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A neither the plaintiffs vendor nor the plaintiff was in possession of the suit
land. Since the plaintiffs vendor, an occupancy raiyat, was a deemed
intermediary under Section 52 of the Act and she was not in possession of
the suit land on the date of vesting i.e., 10.4.1956, her interest in the suit
property vested in the State of West Bengal. So, neither the plaintiffs
B vendor nor the plaintiff was entitled to retain the property under Section
6(1)( d) of the Act and, therefore, the suit for recovery of possession of
such land is not maintainable. Admittedly, this was a new plea which was
never raised by the defendants at any stage of the suit. It should be
remembered that the State of West Bengal, the 3rd defendant in the suit,
never urged a plea that the interest of Kshirodamani in the suit land
C (plaintiffs vendor) vested in the State Government under the provisions of
the Act.

5. Before the High Court the only point urged on behalf of the
defendant (appellant) was, since the plaintiffs vendor, an occupancy raiyat ·
and deemed intermediary under Section 52 of the Act, was not in posses-
.o sion of the suit land on the date of vesting, her interest in the suit land
vested in the State and the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit.
It appears that the plaintiff, respondent in the Second appeal, submitted
before the Court that this new plea raised on behalf of the defendants, was
never raised in the pleadings or at any prior stage of the proceedings and
E the Second Appeal was the 5th hearing of the suit and such a plea raised
only at the time of hearing, cannot be permitted to be raised. The learned
Judge of the Calcutta High Court adverted to the above aspect and has
opined thus :

•; ......... the plea of non-maintainability of the suit is essentially a
F
legal plea and if the suit on the face of it is not maintainable, the
fact that no specific plea was taken or no precise issues were framed
is of little consequence. In the present case the suit on the face of
it appears to be not maintainable in law and therefore, the point
raised on behalf of the appellants although it was not agitated in
G any of the two court below should in my view, be entertained. I am
unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondent
that the said point of law cannot be canvassed for the first time -
before this Court by the appellants."

H (emphasis supplied)
K.C. PURKAIT v. S.K.PURKAIT(PARIPOORNAN,J.) 207

Holding that on the date of vesting the plaintiffs vendor was not in A
pos3ession of the suit land and the defendants trespassed in the suit land
and dispossessed the fourth defendant much earlier on 30th June,, 1954
-· and so, Section 6(1)(d) of the Act does not apply, the learned single Judge
held that the present suit for recovery of possession of the suit land is not
maintainable and dismissed the suit. It is not discernible from the records, B
whether the High Court, at any stage, formulated any "substantial question
of law" involved in the appeal; nor does it appear that the opposite side
had any notice thereof or otherwise aware of it.

6. We are of the view that the learned Judge of the Calcutta High
Court totally overlooked the mandatory provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. C
as amended by Act 104 of 1976.

Prior to the amendment, a second appeal could lie to the High Court
on the grounds set out in Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 100(1), namely:

(a) the decision being contrary to law or to some usage having D
the force of law;

(b) the decision having failed to determine some material issue·
of law or usage having the force of law;
E
(c) a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by this
Code or.by any other law for the time being in force, which
may possibly have produced error or defect in the decision
of the case upon the merits.

However, by the amendment Act of 1976, vital change was introduced by F
the legislature in Section 100 C.P.C. The amended Section (100 C.P.C.)
reads thus:

"100. (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 G
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.

(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree
passed ex parte. H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal
shall precisely state the substa11tial 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 fonnulate that questio11.
B
(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so fonnulated and
the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to
argue that the case does not involve such question :

· Provided that nothlng in this sub-section shall be deemed to
c take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reaso11s
to be recorded, the appeal 011 any other substantial questio11 of law,
not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such
question."

(emphasis supplied)
D
The Amendment Act of 1976 has drastically restricted the scope of second
appeals and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain second appeals is
hedged in by limitations.

E 7. Delivering the judgment of a two member Bench in Panchugopal
Banta & Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.
3631/93) one of us (Dr. Anand, J.) in his judgment dated 12.2.1997 has
lucidly explained the scope of Section 100 C.P.C. as amended, thus :

"A bare look at Section 100 C.P.C. shows that the jurisdiction of
.F the High Court to entertain a second appeal after the 1976 amend-
ment is confined only to such appeal as involve a substantial
question of law, specifically set out in the memorandum of appeal
and formulated by the High Court. Of Course, the proviso to the
Section shows that nothing shall be deemed to take away or abridge
the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the
G appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by
it, if the Court is satisfied that the case involves such a question.
The proviso presupposes that the court shall indicate in its order
the substantial question of law which it proposes to decide even if
such substantial question of law was not earlier formulated by it.
H The existence of a "substa11tial questio11 of law" is thus, the si11e-qua-
K.C. PURKAIT v. S.K.PURKAIT[PARIPOORNAN,J.) 209

non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions A
of Section JOO C.P.C.

,..._, Generally speaking, an appellant is not to be allowed to set up
a new case in second appeal or raise a new issue (otherwise than
a jurisdictional one), not supported by the pleadings or evidence
on the record and unless the appeal involves a substantial question B
of law, a second appeal shall not lie to the High Court under the
amended provisions. In the present case, no such question of law
was formulated in the memorandum of appeal in the High Court
and grounds (6) and (7 ) in the memorandum of the second appeal
only which reliance is placed did not formulate any substantial c
question of law. The learned single Judge of the High Court also,
as it transpires from a perusal of the judgment under appeal, did
not fonnulate any substantial question of law in the appeal and dealt
witit the second appeal, not on any substantial question of law, but
treating it as if it was a first appeal, as of right, against the judgment
and decree of the subordinate Court. The intendment of the D
legislature in amending Section 100 C.P.C. was, thus, respected in
its breach. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court had
decided the cases only on questions of fact, on the basis of the
pleadings and the evidence led by the parties before the Trial
Court. No pure question of law nor even a mixed question of law E
and fact was urged before the Trial Court or the First Appellate
.. Court by the respondent. The High Court was, therefore, not
justified in entertaining the second appeal on an altogether new
point, neither pleaded nor canvassed in the subordinate courts and
that too by overlooking the changes brought about in Section 100
C.P.C. by the Amendment Act of 1976 without even indicating that
F
a substantial question of law was required to be resolved m
the
second appeal. To say the least, the approach of the High Court
was not proper. It is the obligation of the courts of law to further
the clear intendment of the legislature and not to frustrate it by
ignoring the same." G
,_ (emphasis supplied)

The above statement of law has our respectful concurrence.

We would only add that (a) it is the duty cast upon the High Court H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. lS.C.R.

A to formulate the substantial question of law involved in the case even at
the initial stage; and (b) that in (exceptional) cases, at a later point of time,
when the Court exercises its jurisdiction under the proviso to sub-section
(5) of Section 100 C.P.C. in formulating the substantial question of law, the
opposite party should be put on notice thereon and should be given a fair
B or proper opportunity to meet the point. Proceeding to hear the appeal
without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal
is illegal and is an abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court; and
even after the formulation of the substantial question of law, if a fair or
proper opportunity is not afforded to the opposite side, it will amount to
denial of natural justice. The above parameters within which the High •
C Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. should
always be borne in mind. We are sorry to state that the above aspects are
seldom borne in mind in many cases and second appeals are entertained
and/or disposed of, without conforming to the above discipline.

D The guidelines to determine as to what is a "substantial question of
law" within the meaning of Section 100 C.P.C., have been laid down by this
Court in a Constitution Bench decision in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons
Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR (1962) SC 1314
= [1962) Supp. 3 SCR 549. There is also a later decision of this Court in
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. The Union of India and Another, AIR
E (1979) SC 798. It is unnecessary to deal at length with that aspect any
further.

8. In the light of the legal position stated above, we are of the view
that the High Court acted illegally and in excess of jurisdiction in enter-
F taining the new plea, as it did, and consequently in allowing the Second
Appeal. Even according to the High Court, the point urged on behalf of
the appellant was only a "legal plea" though no specific plea was taken or
no precise issues were framed in that behalf. The High Court failed to bear
in mind that it is not every question of law that could be permitted to be
raised in second appeal. The parameters within which a new legal plea
G could be permitted to be raised, are specifically stated in sub-section (5) 1
of Section 100 C.P.C. Under the proviso, the Court should be "satisfie<l'
that the case involves a "substantial question of law" and not a mere ···'"
"question of law". The reason for permitting the substantial question of law
to be raised, should be "recorded'' by the Court. It is implicit therefrom, that
H on compliance of the above, the opposite party should be afforded a fair
K.C. PURKAIT v. S.K. PURKAIT [PARIPOORNAN, J.) 211

or proper opportunity to meet the same. It is not any legal plea that could A
be raised at the stage of second appeal. It should be a substantial question
of law. The reasons for permitting the plea to be raised should also be
recorded. Thereafter, the opposite party should be given a fair or proper
opportunity to mei:t the same. In the present case, as the extracts from the
judgment quoted hereinabove, would show, the High Court has totally B
ignored the mandatory provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. The High Court
proceeded to entertain the new plea and rendered its decision without
following the mandatory provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. On this short
ground, we are of the view that the judgment and decree of the High Court
dated 30th November, 1982 are illegal and in excess of jurisdiction and so
unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. We hereby do so. The appeal is C
allowed with costs, including advocates' fee which we estimate at Rs.
10,000.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.