Land Dispute and Procedural Mandates: A Supreme Court Ruling


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: U. SUDHEERA vs. C. YASHODA.

Citation: 2025 INSC 80 (Reportable)

Background of the Case

This Supreme Court judgment, dated January 17, 2025, addresses a civil appeal challenging an interim order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a land dispute. The dispute originated from a property in Tirupati, involving members of the Gazetted Officers Cooperative House Building Society. The Society had purchased land in Mangalam Village, and was involved in a land acquisition dispute with the government. The government's notification to acquire the land was set aside by the High Court in 1987.

Timeline of Events

  • In 1966, the Gazetted Officers Cooperative House Building Society was registered with the purpose of purchasing and developing land.

  • The Society purchased lands in various survey numbers including Sy. No 10/1 which measured 0.61 acres.

  • Kannavaram Lokanadham, the original owner, sold the land (Sy No. 10/1) to M. Savithramma on May 14, 1981.

  • M. Savithramma sold the land to the Society on March 20, 1986.

  • In 1987, the Government issued a notification to acquire the Society's lands, which the High Court set aside.

  • In 1996, the Tirupati Urban Development Authority approved the layout for the Society's lands.

  • C. Yashoda obtained an ex parte order for mutation of revenue records in 2010.

  • In 2011, C. Yashoda filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Society’s members, claiming ownership based on the mutated revenue records.

  • The Trial Court initially decreed the suit in favor of C. Yashoda.

  • The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, stating that C. Yashoda could not maintain a suit for a bare injunction without seeking a declaration of title.

  • C. Yashoda filed a second appeal in the High Court.

  • The High Court issued an interim order for both parties to maintain status quo, without formulating a substantial question of law.

  • The Supreme Court then set aside the High Court's order, ruling that an interim order cannot be granted before framing a substantial question of law.

Parties Involved

  • Appellants (U. Sudheera & Others): Legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No. 5, and Defendant Nos. 1, 3, and 6, who are members of the Society. They challenged the High Court's interim order.

  • Respondent No. 1 (C. Yashoda): The original plaintiff who claimed ownership of the land based on revenue records mutation. She initially succeeded in the Trial Court, lost in the First Appellate Court, and appealed to the High Court.

  • Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 in the original suit, also members of the Society.

  • Other Defendants: Other members of the Society.

  • Kannavaram Lokanadham: The original pattadar of the land who sold it to M. Savithramma.

  • M. Savithramma: Who bought the land from Kannavaram Lokanadham and sold it to the Society.

Key Legal Points

  • Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): Governs second appeals to the High Court, requiring a "substantial question of law" for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction.

  • Interim Orders: The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court cannot grant an interim order in a second appeal before framing a substantial question of law. This is a mandatory requirement.

  • Revenue Records vs. Title: The Supreme Court reiterated that revenue records do not determine the ownership of the property and mutation does not create or extinguish title.

  • Suit for Injunction: A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration of title.

Appellants' Arguments

The appellants argued that the High Court's interim order was issued without framing a substantial question of law, violating Section 100 of the CPC. They relied on several precedents including Ram Phal v. Banarasi, and Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt. They also contended that the suit for a bare injunction was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not sought a declaration of title, citing Anathula Sudhakar v. P Buchi Reddy. Further, they argued that the trial court's decree was based on revenue records, which are not proof of ownership, referencing Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents argued that the High Court had inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC to issue interim orders to protect the subject matter, citing Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal. They also submitted that the status quo order was a temporary measure, not a final decision, and relied on Vrajesh Anandrao Kerkar v. Durgesh Tulsidas Kerkar to support this. They claimed that the precedents cited by the appellants were distinguishable on facts.

Rationale, Reasoning Given by the Judges

The Supreme Court emphasized that a High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is conditional upon the existence of a substantial question of law as stipulated under Section 100 of the CPC. The court stated that High Courts can exercise jurisdiction to deal with a second appeal on merits, only when it frames a substantial question of law. The High Court's inherent powers cannot be used to bypass the explicit procedural requirements of Section 100. Even if the High Court intends to grant an interim order, it cannot do so without first identifying a substantial question of law. The court reiterated previous rulings that held the framing of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for hearing a second appeal. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court cannot grant an interim order without first satisfying itself about the existence of a substantial question of law. The court relied on precedents including Ram Phal, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Santosh Hazari, Roop Singh, State Bank of India, and Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar.

Excerpt, Important Quotes from the Decision

  • "The High Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with the second appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law...and it cannot grant an interim order, without framing substantial question of law."
  • "Inherent jurisdiction of the court to make orders ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 of the Code, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code."
  • "...the court cannot grant any interim protection to the appellant, unless the substantial question of law is framed under Section 100 (4) or as per the Proviso."
  • “The existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code”
  • "The very jurisdiction of the High Court in hearing a second appeal is founded on the formulation of a substantial question of law."

Points to Remember

  • Procedural Rigor: Strict adherence to the procedure in Section 100 CPC is mandatory.
  • Limits on Inherent Powers: Inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC cannot override explicit provisions of the Code.
  • Substantial Question of Law: The existence of a substantial question of law is a pre-condition for the High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal.
  • Interim Relief: High Courts cannot grant interim relief without first identifying and framing a substantial question of law.
  • Uniformity: The judgment ensures a uniform approach across all High Courts when dealing with second appeals.
  • Revenue Records: Revenue records do not establish ownership of a property.
  • Injunction Suit: A suit for permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of title is not maintainable.
  • Second Appeal Limitation: Second appeals are limited to substantial questions of law, and are not for re-examining facts.
  • Interim vs. Ad interim: Interim orders are formal, whereas ad interim arrangements are temporary and ex parte.
  • High Court Jurisdiction: The High Court's power in second appeal is conditional on the existence of a substantial question of law.

The Supreme Court's ruling serves as an important reminder about the importance of complying with the procedural framework for second appeals, especially regarding the essential requirement of a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC..

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more