AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter was heard finally on 11.05.2017. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant argued the matter. Nobody turned up for the respondents.
At the time of admission of this matter, two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court on 13.07.1995.
However, on careful perusal of the record, it is revealed that the Court below allowed the appeal on two more grounds, namely, (i) the claim of the plaintiff was barred by time in view of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and (ii) the plaintiff was required to prove his right regarding better title. For these two crucial reasons also, the appeal was allowed. No substantial questions of law are framed on these aspects.
In the tentative opinion of this Court, substantial questions of law in this regard may be required to be framed. However, in view of judgment of Apex Court in 2009 (2) SCC 177 (U.R. Virupakshappa Vs. Sarva Mangala), the parties are required to be heard or put to notice in this regard before framing of such substantial questions of law. Thus, I deem it proper to release this matter in order to give opportunity to the parties to put forth their stand regarding framing of additional substantial question of law.
List this matter in the month of July, 2017.
A typed copy of this order be provided to learned counsel for both the parties free of cost.