MATHAKALA KRISHNAIAH versus V. RAJAGOPAL

MATHAKALA KRISHNAIAH versus V. RAJAGOPAL

The High Court must formulate substantial questions of law in second appeals under Section 100 CPC; absence of such formulation renders the judgment unsustainable.

Parties
Appellant: Ma Thakala Krishnaiah; Respondent: V. Rajagopal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside, matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law
Legal Topics
Second Appeal, Substantial Question of Law, Section 100 CPC
Civil Procedure Second Appeal Substantial Question of Law Section 100 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ma Thakala Krishnaiah

Appellant

V. Rajagopal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in disposing of the second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court must formulate substantial questions of law in second appeals under Section 100 CPC; absence of such formulation renders the judgment unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside, matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law

Orders

  • Impugned judgment set aside
  • Matter remitted to High Court for disposal in accordance with law