SOM NATH SETIA Vs. RAVI SETIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this second appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment of the appellate court dated 24th March 2006 whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. Since the second appeal can be preferred only on the substantial question of law in terms of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the appellant in memo of appeal has framed following questions :

(2.) IT would be necessary to have a brief overview of the facts before considering whether any of the questions raised by the appellant in this appeal are really questions of law and if they arise or not. Respondent No. 2 Surendra Kumar had filed a suit before the Civil Court, Pilli Banga, Hanuman Garh, Rajasthan pleading therein that there was a family settlement in respect of the joint properties belonging to parties entered into on 5th November 1993 between respondent No. 2 and the present appellant and respondent No. 1 Ravi Setia. The subject matter of this settlement were properties in Delhi and Rajasthan. He wanted a declaration from the Court that the parties had become owners of the properties as given in the family settlement by virtue of family settlement and the property in Delhi be divided in terms of the settlement and given to the respective owners. During the pendency of this suit, a compromise decree was passed on the basis of the statements made by the plaintiffs and the attorney of the present appellant in the court. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pilli Banga, Rajasthan, decreed the suit in terms of the compromise after recording statements of parties/their attornies passing following order ? The suit is decreed as per the family settlement between the parties and the family settlement shall form part of the decree and the decree sheet be prepared. '

(3.) IT is apparent from the decision of the Civil Judge and the First appellate court that none of the issues framed by the appellant in paragraph above arise out of the judgment of the two courts below. The appellant in fact had not framed questions of law but has framed the questions arising out of the facts of the case as pleaded by him before the Court below and none of these questions could have been gone into by either the Civil Judge Delhi or by the first appellate court, Delhi unless the two courts had come to conclusion that the suit was maintainable in Delhi. Since the two courts came to conclusion that the suit itself was not maintainable in Delhi, the issues or the questions framed by the appellant in this second appeal do not arise. Neither these questions can be considered by this Court in second appeal.