Second Appeal: Judgment Should Not Be Interfered With By High Court Unless There Is A Substantial Question Of Law, Reiterates Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that, the judgment of the First Appellate Court should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless there is a substantial question of law.The First Appellate Court is the final Court on facts. the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.In this...
The Supreme Court reiterated that, the judgment of the First Appellate Court should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless there is a substantial question of law.
The First Appellate Court is the final Court on facts. the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.
In this case, the Trial Court decreed a suit for partition. The First Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree passed in final decree proceedings except in respect of one property. The High Court, set aside the judgment of First Appellate Court on the ground that the land in Block No.5 has non-agricultural potentiality and and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to reconsider allotment of shares to each one of the parties in Block No.5. The court agreed with the contention that allotment of the entire block No.5 in favour of the plaintiffs would cause serious prejudice to the Defendants.
In appeal, the court noted that the First Appellate Court refused to accept the contention regarding non-agricultural potentiality. Therefore, while disagreeing with the High Court view, the bench said:
"The First Appellate Court is the final Court on facts. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the judgment of the First Appellate Court should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, unless there is a substantial question of law. The High Court committed an error in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and finding fault with the final decree by taking a different view on factual findings recorded by the First Appellate Court."
While allowing the appeal, the bench upheld the final decree passed by the Trial Court to the extent affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
Case: Mallanaguoda vs. NinganagoudaCoram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra BhatCitation: LL 2021 SC 188
Click here to Read/Download Judgment