GURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 1084 · Decided: 13-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
GURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
v.
LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2014)
MARCH 13, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA  RAO AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
s. 100 – Second appeal – Scope of – Suit for perpetual
injunction – Trial Court decreed the suit – First Appellate Court
dismissed the suit – High Court in second appeal, after
re-appreciating the evidence decreed the suit – On appeal, held:
Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain second appeal u/s. 100 is
confined only to such appeals which involve ‘a substantial question
of law’ – High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of
the lower court unless it finds that the conclusions drawn by the
lower court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory
provisions of applicable law, or contrary to the law as pronounced
by the apex court or based on inadmissible evidence or no evidence
– The lower court could have decided the case differently is not a
question of law – Appreciation of evidence is not permissible in
second appeal – In the present case, High Court while upsetting
the order of first appellate court appreciated the evidence on record
– The question framed by High Court cannot be said to be substantial
question of law – Thus, High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while
deciding the second appeal – First Appellate Court, on appreciation
of evidence, gave cogent reasons and High Court wrongly
interfered with the same.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 While interfering with and upsetting the
judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court, the High
Court has appreciated the entire evidence on record, which in
exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC is not permissible.
High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that the High Court
was deciding the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC
                                        [2019] 4 S.C.R. 1084
1084
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1085
and not first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. The jurisdiction
of High Court to entertain second appeal under Section 100 CPC
after the 1976 Amendment, is confined only when the second
appeal involves a substantial question of law. The existence of ‘a
substantial question of law’ is a sine qua non for the exercise of
the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. In a second appeal
under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot substitute
its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court, unless it
finds that the conclusions drawn by the lower court were
erroneous being: Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the
applicable law; or Contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex
Court; or Based on in-admissible evidence or no evidence. If
first appellate court has exercised its discretion in a  judicial
manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error
either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second
appeal. The Trial Court could have decided differently is not a
question of law justifying interference in second appeal.
[Para 13.1] [1094-H; 1095-A-F]
1.2   Cogent reasons, on appreciation of the evidence, were
given by the First Appellate Court. First Appellate Court dealt
with, in detail, the so-called suspicious circumstance which
weighed with the  Trial Court and thereafter it came to the
conclusion that the Will, which as such was a registered Will, was
genuine and do not suffer from any suspicious circumstances.
Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while deciding the
second appeal under Section 100 CPC.[Para 15] [1096-D-F]
1.3  As per Section 100 CPC, the jurisdiction of the High
Court to entertain the second appeal under Section 100 CPC is
confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question
of law. The question of law framed by the High Court while
deciding the second appeal in the present case, cannot be said to
be substantial questions of law at all. Therefore, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained
and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[Para 15.1] [1096-F-G; 1097-B]
GURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. .& ORS.  v. LEHNA SINGH (D)
BY LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal (2000) 1 SCC 434 :
[2000] 4 Suppl. SCR  722 ; Madamanchi Ramappa v.
Muthaluru Bojappa AIR 1963 SC 1633 : [1964] SCR
673  – relied on.
2. Despite the catena of decisions of this Court and eve

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