Case: Velayudhan  Vs. Mohammedkutty

2) We need not burden our judgment by mentioning the facts in detail except to the extent necessary to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal.3) The appellants herein are the defendants whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs in a suit out of which this appeal arises.4) The respondents filed a civil suit in relation to the suit land as described in detail in schedule to the plaint against the appellants before the Munsif of Parappanangadi. The Munsif Court decreed thesuit against the appellants and passed the decree as prayed by the plaintiffs.5) The defendants, felt aggrieved, filed the first appeals before the Subordinate Judge Tirur. The first appellate Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the suit. The respondents, felt aggrieved, filed Second Appeals under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as. The High Court admitted the appeals on the following two substantial questions ofThe suit being one for perpetual injunction, whether investigation into the question of title was necessary or called for?2. Whether, in view of the evidence, including thereport, the Appellate Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellants had noBy impugned order, the High Court allowed the appeals and while reversing the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court restored that of the Trial Court, which had decreed thesuit. It is against this order of the High Court, the defendants felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

Reasoning:
8) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and while setting aside of the impugned order consider it just and proper and in the interest of all parties concerned to remand the case to the High Court for deciding theSecond Appeals afresh on merits by reframing the fresh substantial questions of law.9) In our considered opinion, the need to remand the case to the High Court for deciding the Second Appeals afresh has arisen because we find that the High Court proceeded on the assumption that the Civil Suit filed by the respondents out of which this appeal arises is essentially for grant of permanent injunction simpliciter. It would be clear from the first substantial question of law framed by the High Court quoted supra.10) One of the questions, which fell for consideration before the first and second appellate Court was regarding the nature of the Suit filed by the respondents and the reliefs claimedKeeping in view the averments made in Para 1 of the plaint read with aforementioned words of the prayer clause, we are of the view that it cannot be said that the Suit is only for grant of permanent injunction simpliciter. In other words, the issue of title having surfaced in the relief clause, the same is of some significance over the rights of the parties while considering the grant of the reliefs.15) In our considered opinion, the reading of the plaint as a whole in the context of the reliefs claimed therein would go to show that the issue of title is not wholly foreign to the controversy and is relevant while considering the grant of permanent injunction.16) It is true that the relief clause in the plaint is not happily worded but, as observed supra, reading the plaint as a whole along with relief clause does support our observations.17) Since the High Court proceeded to decide the appeals in the light of first substantial question of law and hence it committed an error. The first error was in framing the wrong question and the second was in proceeding to examine the said question.18) The issue, in our view, was required to be examined by the High Court keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy(Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., 2008(4) SCC 594. It was, however, notIt is due to the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that matter needs a fresh look by the High Court on the questions which arise in the case.