Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- s.100 – Second Appeal – Appellant was adopted by his parental uncle at about the age of 14 years as per the rites and customs of the community – After death of his adoptive father, the appellant shifted to a nearby village, from where he managed the properties – In 1979, his adoptive mother gifted the disputed properties to his first wife – Appellant filed regular civil suit praying for declaration of ownership of the suit properties and perpetual injunction – Appellant examined himself and five other witness to prove his adoption and his possession over the suit properties – Trial court dismissed the suit – First Appellate Court allowed regular appeal preferred by the appellant and decided that appellant had been adopted and thus entitled to succeed the property – High Court considered certain questions and allowed second appeal – On appeal, held: There was no question of law, let alone any substantial question of law, involved in the Second Appeal – On facts, it cannot be said that the First Appellate Court acted on no evidence – There was no such infirmity in the reasoning of the First Appellate Court which called for interference – The right of appeal is not automatic but conferred by statute – The questions raised in High Court, did not meet the tests laid down by Supreme Court for holding that the questions are substantial questions of law – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court restored. Substantial question of Law – Meaning and scope – Held – To be ‘substantial’, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned – It will depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There were no questions of law before the High Court, not to speak of substantial questions of law. It is well settled that a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) can only be entertained on a substantial question of law. [Paras 17 & 23][301-A-B; 302-E]
2. The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be, whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or the question raised is palpably absurd, the question would not be a substantial question of law. [Para 31][305-F-H]
3. To be ‘substantial’, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.[Para 32][306-A-D]
4. In the present case, it cannot be said that the First Appellate Court acted on no evidence. Right of appeal is conferred by statute. When statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to this Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court. The questions raised in High Court, did not meet the tests laid down by this Court for holding that the questions are substantial questions of law. There was no question of law, let alone any substantial question of law, involved in the Second Appeal. [Paras 34, 36 and 37][307-D, F-H]
Sir Chunnilal V. Lal Mehta & Sons v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 549; Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545 : [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 79 and Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 : [2001] 1 SCR 948 – relied on.
H.P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa (Dead) by LRs. and Others (2006) 2 SCC 496 : [2006] 2 SCR 120; Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros. and Another (1998) 6 SCC 748 : [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 12, Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait and Others (1997) 5 SCC 438 : [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 1, Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju and Ors. AIR 1951 Mad 969 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.