Supreme Court of India

Hero Vinoth (Minor) v Seshammal

2006 INSC 30520061 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
In an easement dispute the High Court in second appeal treated a right created by a document as an easement of necessity.
Issue
What is a substantial question of law under S.100 CPC, and whether the High Court erred.
Held
A substantial question of law need not be of general importance but must be debatable, material to the decision, and arise from the pleadings; the High Court must be satisfied such a question exists and decide the appeal on it. Misconstruing an easement by grant as an easement of necessity raised such a question. An easement by grant is not extinguished under S.41 of the Easements Act.
Principle
A second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law, which must be properly identified and decided.
Cite this

Facts

  • In an easement dispute the High Court in second appeal treated a right created by a document as an easement of necessity.

Issue

  1. What is a substantial question of law under S.100 CPC, and whether the High Court erred.

Held

  • A substantial question of law need not be of general importance but must be debatable, material to the decision, and arise from the pleadings; the High Court must be satisfied such a question exists and decide the appeal on it. Misconstruing an easement by grant as an easement of necessity raised such a question. An easement by grant is not extinguished under S.41 of the Easements Act.

Cite this

Citation

Hero Vinoth (Minor) v Seshammal 2006 INSC 305

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1881196/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.