The Supreme Court has reiterated the law that “the parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC passing muster are well established. The section itself dictates that such an appeal shall only be maintainable when the case involves a substantial question of law or that the appellate decree has been passed ex parte.  the latter, obviously is not the case.   This   court   has,   in   a   multitude   of   decisions, expounded on what may be termed as a substantial question of law to satisfy the requirements of section 100.”

The bench further observed that, “A Bench of three learned Judges, recently in Balasubramanian and   Anr.   v.   M.   Arockiasamy   (Dead) Through   LRs.10, had referred to, with approval judgement rendered in  Ramathal   v.  Maruthathal  &   Ors11  (two­Judge Bench)   wherein it was observed that the restraint in interfering with questions of fact under the jurisdiction of second appeal, is not an absolute rule. Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such findings.

Noting the facts of the case the bench of Justices AS Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that,” The crux of these appeals lies in a property dispute wherein one of the two brothers namely, Faqir Singh had allegedly sold off the portion of property belonging to him that his brother Gurbachan Singh and he inherited from their father namely Suchet Singh who died intestate in the year 1942. Gurcharan Singh   (Respondent herein/plaintiff) bought a piece of land belonging to Faqir Singh measuring 4 marlas vide sale deed dated 19th  December, 19782   for a consideration of  ₹  6000. Thereafter, he was put in possession of such land however, it was forcibly taken by the Appellant Gurbachan Singh who stated that since Faqir Singh did not have any exclusive title or possession over the suit property, he could not purport to sell the same. 3. The   Respondent   (Gurcharan   Singh)   filed a suit for possession over such disputed property before the SubJudge 1st Class, Jullundur ( now Jalandhar), who, having considered the evidence led, framed certain issues and Hereinafter referred to as “disputed property” 2 3 returned findings in favour of the Appellant  (Gurbachan Singh) herein. On 1st appeal, the learned Additional District Judge upheld the judgement rendered by the court below on two grounds viz. that there is no document on record to prove that the disputed property had been given to Faqir Singh in a family partition; and that if Suchet Singh had indeed affected partition 50 or 60 years ago, then there should have been an entry in the revenue record to that effect, however, no such entry is to be found.

Case Details:-

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10556­10558 OF 2010
GURBACHAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS    
VERSUS
GURCHARAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ORS. 

Click here to download/read the judgment