EASWARI versus PARVATHI & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 844 · Decided: 10-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 8 $.C.R. 844 
EASWARI 
v. 
PARVATHI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1103 of 2004) 
JULY 10, 2014 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100 - Second appeal 
c -Scope of - Held: A second appeal can be allowed only when 
there is substantial question of law involved - However, High 
Court can interfere in second appeal. when finding of first 
appellate court is perverse due to misappreciation of evidence 
- There is no absolute ban on the High Court in second 
0 appeal to interfere with the facts - In the present case, High . 
Court correctly formulated substantial question of law and was 
correct in entertaining the matter in second appeal. 
Succession - Claim of succession - By the second wife 
of the deceased - Held: Not entitled to succeed, as she failed 
E to prove the marriage. 
Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration and 
injunction in respect of 'Schedule A' and 'Schedule B' 
properties, as the legal heirs of 'P' and his predeceased 
F wife 'M'. Schedule A property was ancestral property of 
'P' while Schedule B property was self -acquired property 
of 'M'. The case of the first defendant was that after the 
death of 'M', 'P'married her and as such she was also 
entitled to succeed the property in Schedule A as second 
wife of 'P'. 
G 
H 
In support of her case, she produced temple receipt 
from the lawful custody of the trustee of the temple. She 
also produced acco.unts of gifts made at the time. of 
844 
EASWARI v. PARVATHI & ORS. 
845 
marriage, Voters List for two years, pass books of bank 
A 
accounts and banker's reply. 
Trial Court decreed the suit in respect of both the 
properties. The first appellate court reversed the decree 
as regards Schedule B property, but as regards Schedule 
8 
A property, held that first defendant was also entitled to 
succeed as she had proved her marriage with 'P'. 
In second appeal, High Court disbelieved all the 
documentary evidence produced in support of the 
marriage except temple receipt. But in view of the 
C 
statement of the trustee of the temple held that probative 
value of the receipt got diluted and hence dis.believed it. 
It also held that the bare fact of a man and woman living 
as husband and wife does not normally give them the 
status of husband and wife. 
D 
In appeal to this court, appellant-first defendant 
contended that High Court incorrectly allowed the 
second appeal without formulating a substantial question 
of law; and that marriage of appellant-first defendant and 
E 
'P' was wrongly termed as invalid. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The provision u/s. 100 CPC conveys that 
a ~econd appeal can be allowed only when there is a 
F 
'substantial' question of law involved. However, it is 
settled law that the High Court can interfere in second 
appeal when finding of the First Appellate Court is not 
properly supported by evidence. The High Court cannot 
be precluded from reversing the order and judgment of G 
the Lower Appellate Court if there is perversity in the 
decision due to mis-appreciation of evidence. This holds 
good especially in the light of the principle that even 
when both the Trial Court and the lower court have given 
concurrent findings, there is no absolute ban on the High 
H 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. . 
A Court in second appeal to interfere with the facts. [Para 
11] [854-G; 856-B-C] 
Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573: 1999 
(1) SCR 1168; Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (dead) by LRS v. 
B Nani/al Harakchand Shah (Dead) & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 404; 
Rattan Dev v. Pasam Devi (2002) 7 SCC 441: 2002 (2) 
Suppl. SCR 394 ; Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed (2001) 
7 SCC 189; Mohan v. Santha Bai Ammal 1989 (2) L.W. 197 
- relied on. 
C 
Veerayee Ammal vs. Seeni Ammal (2002) 1 SCC 134 -
referred to. 
1.2. The High Court correctly formulated the 
substantial question of law. The High Court in its 
0 substantial question of law referred to a case wherein it 
has been held that mere receipt of showing payment of 
money without obtaining and producing the marriage 
certificate or without summoning production of the 
original marriage register maintained by the temple, may 
E not be sufficient to establish the marriage. In the light of 
the same, the High Court while answering the substantial 
question, found no substantial evidence by which factum 
of marriage is established. In view of the documentary 
evidence and other evidence, the 

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