RAM BALAK RAI Vs. DAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Second Appeal tiled by the appellants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the C.P.C.), the challenge is against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, whereby, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit of the appellants -original plaintiffs, was affirmed.

(2.) THE appellants herein, the original plaintiffs, initiated a legal battle by filing Title Suit No. 168 of 1978/409 of 1988 contending that they are entitled to the reliefs of declaration of title and confirmation of possession with a further prayer to restrain the respondents -original defendants from entering on the suit land by the order of the Court by granting permanent injunction. The original plaintiffs, as well, the original defendants led evidence. The trial court raised issues in terms of the pleadings of the parties.

(3.) IT is a settled principle of law that in the jurisdictional zone of an appellate court while entertaining a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. there are two limitations and inhibitions which must be made clear at this stage. From the plain perusal of Section 100 of the C.P.C. it becomes obvious that an unsuccessful party is entitled to file a Second Appeal from the appellate decree. However, the High Court is to be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is, therefore, clear that there must be a question of law to be formulated and it must be substantial in nature in terms of the provision of Section 100 of the C.P.C. Section 100 of the C.P.C. which deals with the power and the right of the parties in a given situation for filing a Second Appeal reads as hereunder: