9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-joinder of necessary parties. 2. Estoppel against Plaintiffs. 3. Plaintiffs' locus standi. 4. Ownership and entitlement to possession of the suit property. 5. Formulation of substantial questions of law in Second Appeal. Summary: Issue 1: Non-joinder of necessary parties The Trial Court held that the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties was not seriously pressed, and there was no pleading or evidence led in this regard. Issue 2: Estoppel against Plaintiffs The Trial Court found that the Plaintiffs were estopped from bringing the suit because they had not objected to the Defendants' actions for many years. Issue 3: Plaintiffs' locus standi The Trial Court determined that Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3, being the heirs of Hardial Kaur, had the locus standi to file the suit. Issue 4: Ownership and entitlement to possession of the suit property The Trial Court decided in favor of the Plaintiffs regarding ownership, holding them to be the owners of the suit land. However, the Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed, leading them to file an appeal before the Additional District Judge, which was also dismissed. Issue 5: Formulation of substantial questions of law in Second Appeal The Plaintiffs filed a Regular Second Appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court formulated substantial questions of law, but the Defendants contended that these were not included in the memo of appeal and that they were not given an opportunity to address these questions. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not follow the proper procedure of informing the parties about the substantial questions of law and giving them an opportunity to argue on these points. The Supreme Court emphasized that u/s 100(3) of the Code, the memo of appeal must state the substantial questions of law involved, and the parties must be given a chance to address these questions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of remanding the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with the law. The High Court was directed to give both parties an opportunity to suggest substantial questions of law and to dispose of the appeal preferably within one year. The parties were instructed to appear before the High Court on a specified date.
|
