Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BOKKA SUBBA RAO versus KUKKALA BALAKRISHNA & ORS.

Decided
12 February 2008
Judges listed
TARUN CHATTERJEE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Partly allowed

Citations

Official
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 753 · 2008 INSC 176
Also cited as
  • (2008) 3 SCC 99 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (interior_gap). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 754, margin C

2

At the time of issuing notice to the special leave petition, this Court confined notice as to why the second appeal should not be rerpitted to the High Court for failure to formulate and decide the substantial question of law as required by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

p. 754, margin C

3

A suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration that Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was their absolute property, and for a perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents from obtaining possession of the said item. The suit was dismissed, which was affirmed in appeal. However, by the impugned judgment of the High Court passed in second appeal, the suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved by the, aforesaid judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, a special leave petition has been filed in respect qt which leave has already been granted. 4 .. 1-::lavtng heard the learned counsel for the parties an~.· after examining the judgment of the High Court passed in the second appeal, we are of the view that the judgment in second appeal of the High Court is liable to be set aside on a very short question. It is now well settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court in second appeal, before allowing the same, ought to have formulated the substantial questions of law and thereafter, to decide the same on consideration of such substantial questions of law. In this case, admittedly no such substantial question of law had been formulated and thereafter, the second appeal was allowed. That being the position, we set aside the judgment of the High Court passed in second appeal and remit the appeal back to the High Court for fresh decision after formulating the substantial questions of law and thereafter, to decide it on merits.

pp. 754–755, margin D

5

For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The second appeal is restored to its original file. The High Court is requested to dispose of the second appeal at an early date preferably within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of· the appeal which shall be decided after formulating the substantial questions of law and then to decide the second appeal in accordance with law.

p. 755, margin B

6

The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. S.K.S. Appeal partly allowed.

p. 755, margin C