UMA PANDEY & ANR. versus MUNNA PANDEY & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 09-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
UMA PANDEY & ANR.
v.
MUNNA PANDEY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 2018)
APRIL 09, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL  AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal
involving substantial question of law, dismissed in limine – Propriety
of – Appellants-plaintiffs filed suit against respondents-defendants
for partition and separate possession of the suit land – Suit decreed
by Trial Court – Order set aside by First Appellate Court – Second
appeal filed by appellant dismissed by High Court – Held: High
Court erred in dismissing the second appeal in limine on the ground
that it did not involve any substantial question(s) of law – Document
(Ex-A) filed by respondents was relied on by the Courts below for
deciding the rights of the parties – Interpretation of any document
including its contents or its admissibility in evidence or its effect on
the rights of the parties to the lis constitutes a substantial question(s)
of law within the meaning of s.100 – Appeal did involve substantial
question(s) of law within the meaning of s.100 and, therefore, it
should have been admitted for final hearing on the substantial
question(s) of law arising in the case – Impugned judgment set aside
– Appeal remanded to High Court for decision on merits on the
substantial questions of law framed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court erred in dismissing the second
appeal in limine on the ground that it did not involve any
substantial question(s) of law. The appeal did involve substantial
question(s) of law within the meaning of Section 100, CPC and,
therefore, it should have been admitted for final hearing on the
substantial question(s) of law arising in the case. It is not in dispute
that the defendants (respondents) filed one document (EX-A)-
(Annexure-P-1 of SLP). This document was relied on and
appreciated by the two Courts below for deciding the rights of
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 1056
1056
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
the parties. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the First
Appellate Court reversed it on appreciating the evidence
including EX-A. It is a settled principle of law that interpretation
of any document including its contents or its admissibility in
evidence or its effect on the rights of the parties to the Lis
constitutes a substantial question(s) of law within the meaning of
Section 100, CPC. [Paras 12-15][1059-D-G]
1.2 Whenever such question arises in the second appeal at
the instance of the appellant, it deserves admission on framing
appropriate substantial question(s) on such questions to enable
the High Court to decide the appeal on merits bi-party.[Para
16][1059-H]
1.3 The following substantial questions of law arise in the
second appeal.
1. Whether findings recorded by the first Appellate court
on Ex-A for allowing the defendants’ first appeal and, in
consequence, reversing the judgment/decree of the trial court is
legally and factually sustainable?
2. What is the true nature of Ex-A?  Can it be termed as
“partition deed” or a document recognizing a factum of partition
already effected between the parties in relation to the suit land?
3. Whether Ex-A binds the plaintiff’s and, if so, how and to
what extent?
4. Whether Ex-A requires registration and, if so, its effect?
5. Since Ex-A was exhibited in evidence without any
objection, whether any objection about its admissibility or legality
can now be raised by the appellants in second appeal and, if so,
its effect? [Para 20][1060-C-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3657
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in S. A. No. 255 of 2008.
Manan Kr. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Brahma
Kr. Pathak, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Advs. for the Appellants.
UMA PANDEY v. MUNNA PANDEY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the final judgment
and order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna in Second Appeal No.255 of 2008 whereby the High Court
dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellants herein in limine and
affirmed the judgment/decree dated 14.07.2008 passed by the 1st
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No. 77/
2005/06 of 2007 which arose out of the judgment dated 12.07.2005 and
decree dated 23.07.2005 passed by the 

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