CHANDRABHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus SARASWATI & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 22-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
295
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 295
295
CHANDRABHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
v.
SARASWATI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6857 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- s.100 – Second Appeal –
Appellant was adopted by his parental  uncle at about the age of 14
years as per the rites and customs of the community – After death of
his adoptive father, the appellant shifted to a nearby village, from
where he managed the properties – In 1979, his adoptive mother
gifted the disputed properties to his first wife – Appellant filed regular
civil suit praying for declaration of ownership of the suit properties
and perpetual injunction – Appellant examined himself and five
other witness to prove his adoption and his possession over the suit
properties – Trial court dismissed the suit – First Appellate Court
allowed regular appeal preferred by the appellant and decided that
appellant had been adopted and thus entitled to succeed the property
– High Court considered certain questions and allowed second
appeal – On appeal, held: There was no question of law, let alone
any substantial question of law, involved in the Second Appeal –
On facts, it cannot be said that the First Appellate Court acted on
no evidence – There was no such infirmity in the reasoning of the
First Appellate Court which called for interference – The right of
appeal is not automatic but conferred by statute – The questions
raised in High Court, did not meet the tests laid down by Supreme
Court for holding that the questions are substantial questions of
law – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court restored.
Substantial question of Law – Meaning and scope – Held –
To be ‘substantial’, a question of law must be debatable, not
previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and
must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered
either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned
– It will depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether
a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or
not, the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do
justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation
in the life of any lis.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There were no questions of law before the High
Court, not to speak of substantial questions of law. It is well settled
that a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 (CPC) can only be entertained on a substantial
question of law. [Paras 17 & 23][301-A-B; 302-E]
2. The proper test for determining whether a question of
law raised in the case is substantial would be, whether it is of
general public importance or whether it directly and substantially
affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an
open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this
Court. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general
principles to be applied in determining the question are well
settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles
or the question raised is palpably absurd, the question would not
be a substantial question of law. [Para 31][305-F-H]
3. To be ‘substantial’, a question of law must be debatable,
not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent,
and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if
answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it
are concerned. An entirely new point raised for the first time
before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless
it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the
facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is
a substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount
overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious
balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all
stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the
life of any lis.[Para 32][306-A-D]
4. In the present case, it cannot be said that the First
Appellate Court acted on no evidence. Right of appeal is conferred
by statute. When statute confers a limited right of appeal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
297
restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of
law, it is not open to this Court to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.