THIAGARAJAN AND ORS. versus SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY B. KOIL AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1229 · Decided: 16-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-......___ 
-
--
--
. 
THIAGARAJAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY B. KOIL AND ORS. 
MARCH 16, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908-Section I 00-Single Judge framing 
substantial question of law at the time of admission of second appeal-Another 
Single Judge framing another set of substantial questions of law at the time C 
of rendering of the judgment without recording reasons-Correctness of-
Held, not correct-Jurisdiction bf the High Court is confined to entertain the 
substantial question of law. specifically raised in the memorandum of appeal 
and formulated by the High Court at the time of admission. 
Findings recorded by Appellate court after going into the entire D 
evidence-High Court re-appreciating the evidence in second appeal-
Correctness of-Held, not correct-High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under 
section I 00 CPC-High Court cannot substitute its own findings when two 
views are possible. 
The first and second appellants instituted a suit for declaration of E 
title and for permanent injunction in respect of A Schedule properties and 
for possession of B schedule properties. The appellants contended that the 
suit properties were ancestral properties and they were entitled to them 
by virtue of survivorship and inheritance on the death of the second 
appellant's husband. The defendants contended that the grand father of F 
the first appellant had only two wives and not three wives as contended 
by the first appellant; that the first appellant's grandmother was not the 
third wife but a concubine and hence the father of the first appellant was 
not a legitimate son and therefore had no right, title or interest on the 
suit pr<'perties; that the suit properties devolved on the two widows on 
the death of the grandfather; that, by family arrangement, the suit G 
properties were in possession of one of the two widows; that she had gifted 
the suit properties to her brother's daughter who gifted them to the first 
respondent. The trial court dismissed the suit of the ap_pellants. 
The first appellate court allowed the appeal of the appellants. The 
12m 
H 
1230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A respondents filed a second appeal before High Court. Sin_gle Judge of the 
High Court ~t the time of admission of the second appeal formulated a 
substantial question of law. Another Single Judge of the High C()urt who 
finally heard the matter framed a fresh set of substantial questions of law 
after hearing arguments from both the sides and in the course of rendering 
the judgment. The Single Judge allowed the second appeal of the 
B respondents holding that the grandmother of the first appellant was not 
the legally wedded wife and hence the appellants were not entitled to the 
suit property by survivorship and inheritance. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the Single 
C Judge of the High Court, who heard the arguments and delivered the 
judgment, erred in framing fresh set of su~stantial questions of law at the 
time of rendering the judgment in the second appeal contrary to Section 
100 CPC; that the Single Judge has failed to consider the substantial 
question of law framed by another Single Judge at the time of admission 
of the second appeal; that they were not given opportunity to answer the 
D questions of law framed at a later stage; that the Single Judge has not 
recorded his reasons for framing a fresh set of questions of law by ignoring 
the questions already formulated; that the High Court in second appeal 
cannot make a roving enquiry into the facts by examining the evidence 
afresh to upset the findings of fact rendered by the first appellate court; 
E and that the High Court has looked into only portions of the evidence and 
not the entire evidence while seeking to disturb the factual findings 
rendered by the first appellate court. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court has miserably failed to record the reasons 
for formulating the other substantial questions of law. The Single Judge 
of the High Court has considered only the questions formulated by him 
at the time of final hearing and has not touched the substantial question 
of law formulated at the time of admission of second appeal. The 
jurisdiction of the High Court is confined to entertain only such appeals 
G as involved substantial question of law specifically set out in the 
memorandum of appeal and formulated by the High Court Since

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