9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a second appeal challenging a High Court decision granting a perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction in a property dispute related to a temple. Summary: In a property dispute related to a temple, the Respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the Defendant from constructing any building in the open space near the temple. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled against the Respondent. However, the High Court, u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, granted a perpetual injunction against the Defendant and local authorities from constructing on the property. The High Court also issued a mandatory injunction for the Defendant to preserve the property as a maidan for the temple, allowing only the completion of a record room. The State of Kerala challenged this judgment in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refrained from expressing opinions on the case's merits and noted that the High Court lacked jurisdiction u/s 100 as no substantial question of law was formulated by the Single Judge. The Court emphasized the need for a substantial question of law for a second appeal. The judgment was set aside, and the case was remitted for fresh disposal by the High Court, allowing both sides a chance to present substantial questions of law. Additionally, the Vadavucode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayat sought to file a special leave petition challenging the judgment, which was deemed unnecessary after the Supreme Court's decision. The Panchayat was permitted to move the High Court for involvement in the second appeal. The Court also rejected interference with consequential orders following the main impugned order's setting aside. In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter, remitting the second appeal to the High Court for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of substantial questions of law in such cases.
|
