HARDIAL SINGH versus BALBIR KAUR & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 833 · Decided: 10-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
833
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 833
833
HARDIAL SINGH
v.
 BALBIR KAUR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1925 of 2022)
MARCH 10, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1973: s.100 – Second appeal –
Substantial question of law – On 25.02.2016, Constitutional Bench
judgment in Pankajakshi case, held that as far as Punjab and
Haryana High Court is concerned, in a second appeal, the law
which would be applicable would be s.41 of Punjab Courts Act,
1918 which states that in Punjab and Haryana, in a second appeal,
the Court need not frame substantial questions of law in second
appeal – Impugned order passed on 02.02.2013 on the ground that
substantial questions of law were not framed and without that the
second appeal was allowed by High Court – Held: High Court
proceeded to deal with the second appeal even without formulating
a substantial question of law as would have been the requirement
as it was understood in law in the year 2013 in the absence of the
judgment in Pankajakshi – Matter remanded to High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: A perusal of the impugned judgment which was, in
fact, rendered on 02.02.2013 which is prior to the judgment in
Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others
would, undoubtedly, appear to bear the appellant out in his
complaint at the stage when the Court considered it on the first
occasion, namely, that the Judge has proceeded to deal with the
second appeal even without formulating a substantial question of
law as would have been the requirement as it was understood in
law in the year 2013 in the absence of the judgment in Pankajakshi
(Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others. The High
Court has proceeded in the matter without even carefully
attending to the evidence which is available on record. It is
another matter that in a second appeal jurisdiction of the Court
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
as understood by this Court is very narrow. The findings which
have been rendered and the approach of the Court would make
it incompatible with the power available to the Court within the
four walls of its jurisdiction in a second appeal as laid down by
this Court. The case is remanded back to the High Court. The
High Court will consider the matter as early as possible keeping
in mind the fact that the suit is of the year 1998. [Paras 9, 11][837-
G-H; 838-A-C, E]
Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and
Others v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157 :
[2016] 3 SCR 1018; Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh
and Others (2019) 17 SCC 71 : [2019] 9 SCR 776;
Avtar Singh & Ors. v. Bimla Devi & Ors. 2021 SCC
Online SC 827 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 3 SCR 1018
referred to
Para 5
[2019] 9 SCR 776
referred to
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1925
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.1341 of 2013 (O&M).
Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv., K. P. Singh, Bhupender Singh,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Appellant.
Partha Sil, Tavish B. Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
Leave granted.
(1) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are plaintiffs, filed the suit
seeking declaration of title and prohibitory injunction. The first defendant
was the mother-in-law of the first plaintiff and the paternal grandmother
of the second plaintiff. The appellant is the brother-in-law of the first
plaintiff that is he is the brother of Sucha Singh.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
835
(2) The suit was laid on the following basis.
Shri Sucha Singh, who was the husband of the first plaintiff and
the father of the second plaintiff, passed away on 21.04.1998. The case
was set-up against the mutation which was allegedly illegally carried out
and as a result of which, in regard to the 1/3 right, the name of the
defendants were entered.
The case of the plaintiffs is that Sucha Singh has left behind a will
dated 19.04.1998 before he died on 21.04.1998 which was registered on
18.06.1998. Under the will, the plaintiffs were bequeathed all his rights.
The appellant and the other defendants contested the suit and contended
that the will dated 19.4.1998 was forged. It was their case that since
Sucha Singh died intestate, the plaintiffs and the mother of Sucha Singh
being Class I heirs inherited 1/3 right each. On the strength of the said
succession, the mother executed a will dated 16.07.1998 (D1) in favour
o

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