Case: Ram Chand (D) Th Lrs.  Vs. Udai Singh @ Daya Ram

2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals.      3. The dispute in the suit out of which this appeal arises relates to agricultural lands comprises of Khewat No. 280 Khata No. 350 Rect. No. 258 Killa No. 25 area 5 kanal, Rect. No. 295 Killa No. 5 area01 marla, Rect. No. 214 Killa 11 area 5 kanals 12 marlas, killa no. 12 area 8 kanal, Rect. No. 255 Killa No. 6/1 area 2 kanals 10 marlas, 6/2 area 2 kanals 17 marlas, 7/1 area 4 kanals 3 marlas, 7/2 area 3 killa 17 marlas Killa 8 area 8 kanals, Rect. 258 killa 16 area 6 kanals 6 marlas, killa 24 area 8 kanals, total area 54 kanals 6 marlas situated in Patti Bedha, Hodel (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land").      4. The plaintiff (Ram Chand) since dead and now represented by his legal representatives (appellants herein) filed a civil suit out of which these appeals arise against the respondents (defendants) claiming right, title and interest in the suit land. The plaintiff (appellants) also claimed possession of the suit lands from the defendants (respondents).      5. The claim of the plaintiff, in substance, is based on the law of inheritance. It is, inter alia, alleged in the plaint that the suit land originally belonged to one Hiri, son of Bhondu and on his death, the plaintiff claimed his right, title and interest in the suit land as one of the nearest heirs of the deceased Hiri through inheritance.      6. The defendants (respondents) denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied his right to claim the ownership of the suit land by inheritance through Hiri. The defendants then claimed ownership over the suit land on the basis of a Will said to have been executed in their favour by the erstwhile owner of the suit land.By judgment/decree dated 24.12.1979, the Trial Court1st Class), Palwal decreed the suit against the defendants for possession and held that the plaintiff would be entitled to get only symbolic possession of the suit land because the suit land was in possession of Ram Narain (defendant No.5) as tenant.      9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment/decree, both the parties filed first appeals before the District Judge, Gurgaon being Civil Appeal Nos. 5 and 6 of 1980.      10. The District Judge, by his judgment and order dated 09.04.1980, dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the judgment/decree passed by the Trial Court.      11. Against the said judgment, both plaintiff and defendants filed second appeals before the High Court being R.S.A. No. 1791 of 1980 (filed by the plaintiff) and R.S.A. No.2037 of 1980 (filed by the defendants).      12. The High Court, by the impugned common judgment and order dated 21.11.2011, dismissed R.S.A. No.1791 of 1980 filed by the plaintiff and allowed R.S.A. No.2037 of 1980 filed by the defendants. As a result, the suit came to be dismissed.      13. Against the said judgment, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

Reasoning:
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeals and while setting aside the impugned judgment, remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeals afresh in accordance with law as indicated below.The reasons to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned due to the reason that the High Court while disposing of second appeals filed by the both parties did not frame any substantial question of law as is required to be framed at the time of admission of the second appeal and proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the defendants and dismiss the appeal filed by the plaintiff.Perusal of the impugned order shows that no such question was formulated except to note the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that it so arises but not beyond that as to whether it actually arises and, if so, what is that question.