The division judge bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K Maheshwari of the supreme court of India in the case of Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRS & Ors Vs Saraswati & Ors held that right of appeal is not automatic. The right of appeal is conferred by statute. When statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases that 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.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that Baliram and Yamunabhai were childless and the brother of Baliram, Rambhau had two sons. Further, it is stated that Baliram and Rambhau had mutually agreed that Baliram would adopt Rambhau’s son, Chandrabhan (Original Plaintiff). Thereafter, the Baliram died intestate, and Original Plaintiff Chandrabhan shifted to a nearby village, from where he managed the properties left by Baliram. Thereafter, the Original Defendant No.2 Champabai is the first wife of the Original Plaintiff, Chandrabhan. In 1979, the Original Defendant No. 1, Yamunabai, wife of Baliram purportedly gifted the suit properties to the Original Defendant No. 2 Champabai, wife of the Original Plaintiff. After that, the original plaintiff filed the civil suit praying for a declaration of ownership of the suit properties, perpetual injunction, and other reliefs. Furthermore, the original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the high court. The high court after considering all the relevant evidence concluded that the Original Plaintiff had been adopted by Baliram and thus entitled to succeed the property of Baliram after his death.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble apex court observed that 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.
The hon’ble court further relied upon the judgments titled, ‘H.P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa (Dead) by LRs. And Others’, ‘Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros. and Another’, Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait and Others’, ‘Sir Chunnilal V. Lal Mehta & Sons v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd’ and ‘Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal’.
The hon’ble court stated that 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. 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 is concerned. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first, a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by the court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. 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.
The top court held that in this case, it cannot be said that the First Appellate Court acted on no evidence. The Respondents in their Second Appeal before the High Court did not advert to any material evidence that had been ignored by the First Appellate Court. The Respondents also could not show that any wrong inference had been drawn by the First Appellate Court from proven facts by applying the law erroneously. It was further held that the right of appeal is not automatic. The right of appeal is conferred by statute. When statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases that 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.
CASE NAME- Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRS & Ors Vs Saraswati & Ors
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022
CORUM- Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K Maheshwari
DATED- 22.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
