Supreme Court Clarifies Procedural Limits on Interim Relief in Second Appeals

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the procedural validity of granting interim relief in Second Appeals without formulating substantial questions of law, as mandated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The judgment arose from a civil dispute between U. Sudheera and others (Appellants) and C. Yashoda and others (Respondents), involving the ownership and injunction over property in Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. The case focused on the boundaries of judicial discretion in interim relief during the pendency of Appeals.

The decision has far-reaching implications for the procedural conduct of second Appeals and reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines. By resolving ambiguities in the application of interim measures, the ruling serves to maintain judicial efficiency and uphold the principles of justice.

Facts of the Case

The dispute concerned land in Mangalam Village, Tirupati, purchased by the Gazetted Officers Cooperative House Building Society in 1986. The Society was established to procure and develop residential plots for its members. The suit property, measuring 0.61 acres, was originally acquired by the Society through a Sale Deed dated March 20, 1986, from one M. Savithramma, who had earlier acquired it from the original owner, Kannavaram Lokanadham.

In 1987, the Government attempted to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, prompting the Society to challenge the Notification in the High Court. The acquisition was ultimately quashed, and the Society proceeded to develop the land. Later, Respondent No. 1 filed a request for mutation of revenue records in 2010, which was granted ex parte by the Tahsildar. Based on this mutation, she filed a suit for permanent injunction in 2011.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff in 2016, relying on revenue records to establish ownership. However, the first Appellate Court overturned this decision in 2022, stating that the Plaintiff could not seek an injunction without also seeking a declaration of title. Subsequently, the Plaintiff approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court, where interim relief was granted, leading to the Appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Can the High Court grant interim relief in a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC without first framing substantial questions of law?
2. Does the inherent power under Section 151 CPC extend to granting interim relief in violation of procedural requirements?
3. How should courts interpret the evidentiary value of revenue records in determining ownership?

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated January 17, 2025, overturned the High Court’s interim orders. It addressed each issue as follows:

1. Mandatory Requirement of Substantial Questions of Law: The Court emphasized that Section 100 CPC allows Second Appeals solely on the basis of substantial questions of law. Granting interim relief without identifying such questions undermines the statutory scheme and sets a dangerous precedent. The Court cited Ram Phal v. Banarasi and Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt to support its reasoning.
2. Role of Inherent Powers: While Section 151 CPC permits courts to take actions necessary to secure justice, these powers cannot override explicit statutory provisions. The Court observed that the High Court’s reliance on inherent powers to justify the interim order was misplaced.
3. Revenue Records as Evidence: Referring to Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., the Court clarified that revenue records are merely administrative documents and do not confer or establish ownership rights. They serve to facilitate tax collection but lack substantive legal standing in property disputes.
4. Procedural Safeguards in Appeals: The Court noted that the practice of granting interim relief without serving notice to all parties and without framing substantial questions of law could lead to misuse. It highlighted the need for courts to maintain procedural discipline to ensure fair adjudication.

By invalidating the High Court’s interim orders, the Supreme Court reinforced the principles of judicial propriety and statutory adherence. It also underscored that interim relief measures must not contravene established legal norms.

Conclusion

This landmark judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 100 CPC, ensuring that second Appeals are entertained only when substantial questions of law are properly identified. The ruling serves as a vital reminder of the boundaries of judicial discretion, emphasizing that inherent powers must align with statutory mandates. Additionally, the Court’s commentary on the limited evidentiary value of revenue records provides clarity for future property disputes.

By setting aside the High Court’s interim orders, the Supreme Court has not only upheld procedural integrity but also set a precedent for balanced judicial intervention. This decision will likely influence the handling of similar disputes, ensuring that justice is delivered within the framework of established legal principles.

 

Yugank

Intern

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log on to our YouTube channel The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips and learn about different aspects of the law. Our latest video is on “Supreme Court Litigation” that may be viewed on the link below:

https://youtu.be/scMIgaQs_7E?si=tNdNQq_vE3uT-_Cg