SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.B. Majmudar and U. C. Banerjee, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 4089 of 1988. D/d. 3.5.2000.

Mrs. Teresinha Fernandes and others - Appellants

Versus

Antonio Elizabeth Piedade Aquiles Barreto and others - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 133 - Civil proceedings - Appeal to Supreme Court - Dismissal of second appeal by High Court - Finding of Supreme Court that three substantial questions of law arose for consideration - Order of High Court dismissing the second appeal not proper - Matter remanded to the High Court to re-decide the same in accordance with law.

[Para 2]

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J. - In this appeal the High Court has disposed of the second appeal by observing that no substantial question of law arises out of the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The order is a short one which reads as under :

"Rejected as no substantial questions of law arise and the learned District Judge decided the case correctly and in accordance with the relevant provisions of law."

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at quite some length, we find, from the mere reading of the appellate Court's judgment, that three substantial questions of law do arise for consideration of the High Court under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code as under :

1. Whether the Gift Deed of 1944 in favour of defendant No. 1 can be said to be accepted in accordance with law by the donee.

2. Whether the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant No. 1 can be said to be barred by limitation.

3. What is the legal effect of the common Gift Deed having become final in favour of the co-donee defendant No. 2, to the extent of latter's share?

3. The civil appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and Second Appeal No. 22 of 1987 is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to re-decide the same in accordance with law on the aforesaid three substantial questions of law, after hearing the parties, at its earlier convenience and preferably within a period of four months from the receipt of a copy of this order.

4. Office to send a copy of this order to the Registrar of the High Court for placing the same before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court for doing the needful.

5. We make it clear that we make no observations on the merits of the controversy between the parties.

6. Status quo regarding possession of the suit property to continue till the final disposal of the remanded second appeal by the High Court.

7. No costs.

Order accordingly.