CIDDAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM REDDY Vs. NAMAKARI MUNI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3/2/2006 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in second appeal No. 536 of 1994 and second appeal No. 561 of 1994. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the two appeals filed by the respondent and set aside the judgment of the appellate court thereby restoring the judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the respondent.

(3.) In our view, on a short question and without going into the merits, the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside, as we find that the High Court, while entertaining the second appeal, has failed to frame the substantial question of law which is a mandatory requirement under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short CPC). It is true that the substantial question of law which arose for consideration, as observed by the High Court, was whether the lower appellate court was just and proper in throwing the burden against the plaintiff in O.S. No. 318/1981 to prove Exhibit B.1 agreement of sale executed in his favour. In our view, it was the duty of the High Court to specifically frame the question of law at the time of admission of appeal and thereafter, at the time of hearing of the second appeal, the question so framed should have been decided by the High Court. In our opinion, the question that was formulated at the time of hearing of the second appeal cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. (See Thiagarajan & Ors. V/s. Sri Venugopalaswami B. Koil & Ors (2004) 5 SCC 762)