Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in U. Sudheera & Ors. v. C. Yashoda & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 567 of 2025, reaffirmed that High Courts cannot grant interim orders in second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), without first formulating a substantial question of law. The ruling emphasizes that the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is confined to questions of law and not factual disputes.
This landmark judgment reinforces procedural discipline and ensures that second appeals remain within the confines of legal scrutiny rather than being used as a tool for interim relief. The Supreme Court’s verdict sets a precedent on how appellate courts should exercise their powers while dealing with second appeals and whether they can issue interim orders without identifying a substantial legal issue.
Background and Facts of the Case
The case arose from a dispute concerning property rights and possession in Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. The parties involved were members of the Gazetted Officers Cooperative House Building Society, which was established for the purpose of purchasing and developing land.
The first respondent (plaintiff) had filed O.S. No. 48 of 2011 before the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property and argued that the defendants were interfering with her possession.
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting the injunction. However, upon appeal, the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, overturned the trial court’s decision on November 11, 2022. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had not sought a declaration of title, making the injunction suit legally untenable.
Dissatisfied with the appellate court’s decision, the plaintiff filed a second appeal (S.A. No. 518/2023) before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Instead of framing a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC, the High Court granted an interim order, directing both parties to maintain status quo. This interim relief was subsequently extended, prompting the defendants to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Can a High Court grant interim relief in a second appeal without first framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC?
- Is a suit for a bare injunction maintainable without a declaration of title?
- Can revenue records alone be used to establish ownership?
Arguments by the Appellants (Defendants in the Original Suit)
The appellants, who were legal representatives of deceased Defendant No. 5 and other defendants in the suit, contended that:
- The High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by granting an interim order before framing a substantial question of law:
- The appellants relied on Ram Phal v. Banarasi, (2003) 11 SCC 762, where the Supreme Court held that a second appeal can only proceed once the High Court has framed a substantial question of law.
- The High Court’s interim relief was premature and legally unsustainable since the appeal had not yet been admitted based on a legal issue.
- The suit for bare injunction was not maintainable:
- The appellants argued that the plaintiff had not sought a declaration of title, which is a prerequisite for an injunction suit concerning immovable property.
- They cited Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, which holds that a person claiming possession must also establish ownership when the title is disputed.
- Revenue records do not confer ownership rights:
- The plaintiff’s claim was primarily based on revenue records, which the appellants argued had no bearing on ownership.
- The appellants cited Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191, where the Supreme Court held that “mutation entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title over land and have no presumptive value on ownership.”
Arguments by the Respondents (Plaintiff in the Original Suit)
The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that:
- The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant interim relief:
- The respondent relied on Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527, which states that courts have inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to grant interim relief in exceptional circumstances.
- The interim order merely preserved the status quo and did not affect the merits of the case.
- The order was temporary and did not create new rights:
- The plaintiff argued that the order was an ad interim arrangement meant to protect the subject matter of the dispute.
- The second appeal had not been dismissed, and the High Court had yet to fully examine the case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court categorically held that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by granting interim relief without first framing a substantial question of law. The Court reaffirmed several key principles:
- Second Appeals Must Be Based on a Substantial Question of Law
- Section 100 CPC explicitly states that a second appeal can only be entertained if it involves a substantial question of law.
- The High Court cannot grant relief in a second appeal without identifying such a legal issue.
- Interim Relief Cannot Precede the Framing of a Substantial Question of Law
- The Court reiterated its ruling in Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt, (2016) 11 SCC 235, where it held that second appeals cannot proceed unless a substantial question of law is framed.
- The inherent power of the court under Section 151 CPC cannot override statutory provisions (Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179).
- Revenue Records Do Not Establish Ownership
- The Court reinforced that revenue records cannot be relied upon to determine ownership.
- The decision in Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar was reiterated, confirming that mere entries in land records do not create legal ownership rights.
Conclusion and Impact of the Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s interim order, reinforcing that procedural discipline must be maintained in second appeals. The ruling:
- Strengthens the legal requirement that second appeals must be based on a substantial question of law.
- Prevents the misuse of appellate jurisdiction to obtain interim relief without legal basis.
- Clarifies that revenue records alone cannot determine ownership rights.
This judgment provides crucial guidance for appellate courts, ensuring that second appeals remain confined to legal issues rather than being used as a means to secure interim relief in property disputes.
FAQs:
1. Can a High Court issue a temporary order (interim relief) in a civil appeal without first identifying a significant legal point?
No, a High Court cannot grant temporary orders in a second appeal unless it has first determined and framed a “substantial question of law” that the appeal is based upon. This ensures the appeal focuses on legal issues, not just factual disputes.
2. What is a “second appeal” in a civil case, and what can a higher court examine in it?
A “second appeal” is a final appeal to the High Court in a civil case, limited strictly to “substantial questions of law.” The court cannot re-evaluate factual findings made by the lower courts unless those findings are legally perverse or based on no evidence.
3. Can I sue for an injunction (to stop interference) with my property without also proving my ownership title?
Generally, a lawsuit seeking only a permanent injunction to prevent interference with property without also asking for a formal declaration of ownership title is not maintainable, especially if your ownership is disputed.
4. Do land revenue records, such as mutation entries, establish legal ownership of a property?
No, entries in land revenue records or mutation entries do not, by themselves, create or extinguish legal ownership rights over land. They are primarily for fiscal purposes and do not conclusively prove title.
5. Why is it important for a civil appeal to be based on a “substantial question of law”?
Requiring a “substantial question of law” ensures that higher appeals focus on significant legal interpretations or applications, preventing every factual dispute from reaching the highest courts and maintaining procedural discipline in the judicial system
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.