LAW FOR ALL

under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short the ‘the CPC’) was limited to only deciding substantial questions of law which arise in a case - when material evidence is not considered, which if considered, would have led to an opposite conclusion, a substantial question of law arises for decision which the High Court can decide in a Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. whether the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and the first appellate court has held in C.A. No. 1721 on 20.03.2004 that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his ownership 16Page 17 over the suit property and has further held in C.A. No.16-T filed on 19.09.1990 that the plaintiff’s own admitted case in the plaint is that the appellants had purchased the suit property from Col. Girdhar Singh and his family members and were in possession of the same and hence the plaintiff was not entitled to declaration of his title, recovery of possession and injunction. In this case, therefore, the first appellate court had decided the core issue against the plaintiff and no substantial question of law arose for decision in this case by the High Court under Section 100, CPC. 13. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the impugned common judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside. Considering, however, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.