P. CHANDRASEKHARAN AND ORS. versus S. KANAKARAJAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 967 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

P. CHANDRASEKHARAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
S. KANAKARAJAN AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s. I 00-Second appeal-Substantial question of law-Held: 
Interpretation of a document which goes to the root of the title of a party C 
to the /is would give rise to a substantial question of /aw-When courts 
below misread and misinterpreted a document of title read with other 
documents and the plan for identification of suit property, a substantial 
question of law arose for determination of High Court. 
Order 22 Rule 4-Abatement of cross-objection-Held: The question as 
to whether a suit or an appeal has abated or not would depend upon facts 
of each case-Question having not been raised before High Court-Supreme 
Court, in appeal, cannot enter into disputed question of fact-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Artic/e 136. 
In a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court arising out the 
judgment of the High Court dismissing a second appeal of the plaintiffs and 
allowing the cross-objection of the defendants, with respect to certain 
properties, it was contended that the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 
D 
E 
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be attracted in relation to cross-
objections. The contention was accepted and the matter was remitted to the F 
High Court for framing appropriate substantial question of law. The High 
Court, after formulating two substantial questions of law on the propriety of 
the lower appellate court in ignoring and non-consideration of the 
documentary evidence relating to description of the properties, allowed the 
cross-objection, and the said judgment was challenged by the plaintiffs in the G 
present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that the purported questions 
formulated by the High Court did not constitute substantial question of law 
and since all the relevant documents referred to in the questions of law 
967 
H 
968 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A formulated by the High Court had received elaborate description of the property 
in a document, the same by itself would not give rise to a substantial question 
of law; and that in view of the fact that during pendency of the second appeal 
in the earlier round of litigation, one of the cross-objectors bad died; and, as 
such, the cross-objection having abated, and no application for impleadment 
B 
of legal representatives of the estate of the cross-objectors having been filed 
within the period stipulated under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Interpretation of a document which goes to the root of the 
c title of a party to the lis would indisputably give rise to a substantial question 
of law. What is prohibited for the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction 
under Section 100 of CPC is to interfere with a finding of fact. This limited 
jurisdiction, inter alia, would become exercisable when the findings are based 
on misreading of evidence or are so perverse that no reasonable person or 
D 
ordinary prudence could take the said view. (Paras 13 and 141 (973-B, C, DI 
1.2. In a suit for recovery of possession of the property, Court would 
determine identity of the property. When the courts below misread and 
misinterpreted a document of title read with other documents and the plan 
for the identification of the suit lands whereupon the plaintiffs themselves 
E 
relied upon, a substantial question oflaw arose for determination of the High 
Court in between the parties to the suit. 
(Paras IO and 191 (972-A, B; 975-G; 976-A) 
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Vijay Dasharath Patel, (2007) 
4 SCALE 132; Rev. Fr. MS. Poulose v. Varghese & Ors., [1995) Supp. 2 SCC 
F 294 and Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, [20061 5 sec 545, relied on. 
2. The question as to whether a suit or an appeal has abated or not would 
depend upon the fact of each case. Had such a question been raised before the 
High Court, the respondents could have shown that their cross-objection did 
not abate as the estate of the deceased cross-objector was substantially 
G represented. The question in regard to abatement of a suit or appeal has not 
been raised. This Court cannot enter into the disputed question of fact at this 
stage as to whether there has been a substantial representation of the estate 
of the deceased cross-objectors. [Paras 21 and 231 (976-B, C; 97

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