GURDEV KAUR AND ORS. versus KAKI AND ORS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 18-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. i 
GURDEV KAUR AND ORS. 
A 
11. 
KAKI AND ORS. 
APRIL 18, 2006 
[RUMA PAL AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, J 908: 
'j 
Section JOO (as ii stood after the J976 Amendment)-Second appeal- c 
Substantial question of law-Scope of interference-Legislative intention 
and ambit-Validity of Will-Dispute regarding-Deceased-testator had two 
wives-Firs/ wife died before the deceased and plaintiffi were the daughters 
of the deceasedfrom his first wife-Deceased executed a Will bequeathing his 
entire property in favour of the defendant-second wife-Defendant got 
sanctioned the mutation of inheritance of the deceased on the basis of the D 
alleged Will-According to the plaintiffi, the deceased did not execute any 
" 
Will out of his free will-The trial court held that the Will was duly executed 
by the deceased inf avour of his second wife and was a natural document-
The first appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court-The High 
Court, in second appeal, set aside the concurrent findings of facts arrived at 
E 
by the courts below on the ground that, in the normal circumstances, a 
. 
prudent man would have bequeathed the property inf avour of his legal heirs 
and would not have disinherited the plaintiffs-Correctness of-Held: 
Interference in ·second appeal under s, JOO in cases where there is no 
substantial question of law is against'1he legislative intention-The High 
Courts would have jurisdiction of interfering under Section JOO C.P.C. only F 
in a case where substantial questions of law are involved and those questions 
have been clearly formulated in the memorandum of appeal-High Court 
bound to formulate substantial question of law before hearing the appeal-
In the instant case, the High Court has not formulated the substantial question 
of law before hearing the appeal-The judgment of the High Court is clearly 
against the provisions of Section l 00 and in no uncertain terms clearly G 
violates the legislative intention-The Court does not sit in appeal over the 
-
right or wrong of the testator's decision-High Court judgment set aside-
Hindu Succession Act, J956. 
27 
i 
H 
.. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. I S.C.R. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Substantial question of law"·-Meaning of-In the con/ext of S. 100 
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190/J. 
The deceased-testator had two wives. The first wife died before the 
deceased. The respondents-plaintiffs were the daughters of the deceased from 
his first wifo. The appellants-defendants were the second wife and daughters 
of the deceased. The deceased executed a Will bequeathing his entire property 
in favour of his second wife on the basis of which the defendant-wife got the 
mutation of inheritance of the deceased sanctioned on the basis of the alleged 
Will. According to the respondents-plaintiffs, the deceased did not execute 
any Will out of his free will. The trial court held that the Will was duly 
executed by the deceased in favour of his second wife and was a natural 
document. The first appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court. 
Being aggrieved, the respondents-plaintiffs preferred a second appeal 
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court. 
The High Court set aside the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the 
courts below on the ground that, in the normal circumstances, a prudent man 
would have bequeathed the property in favour of his legal heirs am! would not 
have disinherited the respondents-plaintiffs. Hence the appeal. 
The following question arose before the Court:-
Whether, according to the true delineated scope of Section 100 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was the High Court justified in interfering 
with the concurrent findings of fact? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Indiscriminate and frequent interference under Section 100 
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in cases which are totally devoid of any 
substantial question law is not only against the legislative intention but is 
also the main cause of huge pendency of second appeals in the High Courts 
leading to a colossal delay in the administration of justice in civil cases in 
our country. (32-EJ 
1.2. Despite declaration of law in numerous judgments, it is evident that 
the scope and ambit of Section 100 C.P.C. has not been properly appreciated 
and applied in a large number of cases. A serious endeavour to discern 
legislative intention, ambit and scope of i

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