PHOOSA RAM Vs. JUGAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nohar camp Bhadra in Civil Appeal No. 8/1993, came to be admitted on 19.05.1995 but without formulating any substantial question of law.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised the preliminary objection that being the second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be considered without the Court formulating the substantial question of law; and in the present case, no substantial question of law being involved, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh and Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1749 and Narayanan Rajendran and Anr. Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini and Ors. : 2009 AIR SCW 2357.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that even if the substantial questions of law were not formulated at the time of admission of the appeal, this appeal does involve substantial question of law as to whether the land which was never the property of the Panchayat could have been sold by the Panchayat and could become private property when it is recorded in the revenue record as a cremation ground ?