SASIKUMAR Vs. KUNNATH CHELLAPPAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This appeal relates to a judgment delivered by a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No. 174/90-D. It may be noted that by a common judgment dated 9-12-1997 two appeals, both filed by the present respondent No. 1 were disposed of. Second Appeal No. 174/1990 to which the present appeal relates was directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 42 of 1986 of Sub Court, Palakkad. Same was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 118 of 1970 of the Munsiffs Court, Palakkad. The other Second Appeal No. 531 of 1990 was preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge, Palakkad in appeal which was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 126 of 1977 of the Munsiffs Court, Palakkad. By a common judgment, as noted above, the High Court disposed of both the matters. Learned single Judge dismissed Second Appeal No. 531 of 1990, but set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below in the other appeal i.e. Second Appeal No. 174 of 1990. Though several points were urged in support of the appeal, we find that the basic issue which requires to be adjudicated is whether the Second Appeal in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code) could have been disposed of without formulating substantial question of law by the High Court. It is, therefore, not necessary to deal with the factual aspects in detail.

(3.) Mr. P. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court was not justified in disposing of the Second Appeal without formulating the substantial question or questions of law, as mandated by Section 100 of the Code.