Supreme Court clarifies the scope of second appeals in Punjab and Haryana: Hardial Singh vs. Balbir Kaur (2022)

Date of the Judgment: March 10, 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 238

Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a High Court interfere with factual findings of a lower court in a second appeal? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning a property dispute in Punjab. The core issue revolved around the extent to which the High Court can re-evaluate evidence and factual findings in a second appeal, particularly in the context of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute between Hardial Singh (the appellant) and Balbir Kaur and her son (the respondents). Balbir Kaur and her son filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and a prohibitory injunction regarding a property. The dispute arose after the death of Sucha Singh, the husband of Balbir Kaur and father of her son, on April 21, 1998. The plaintiffs (Balbir Kaur and her son) claimed that Sucha Singh had bequeathed all his rights to them through a will dated April 19, 1998. The defendants, including Hardial Singh, contested this will, arguing it was forged. They contended that Sucha Singh died intestate, and therefore, his mother and the plaintiffs would inherit the property equally.

Sucha Singh’s mother then executed a will on July 16, 1998, in favor of her other two sons, including Hardial Singh. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, accepting the will of April 19, 1998, as valid. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, finding the will suspicious and instead upholding the will of July 16, 1998. The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal before the High Court, which overturned the appellate court’s decision and restored the trial court’s decree.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially favored the plaintiffs, declaring them owners based on the will dated April 19, 1998. However, the first appellate court reversed this, finding suspicious circumstances surrounding the will and upholding the will of July 16, 1998. The High Court, in a second appeal, then overturned the appellate court’s decision and restored the trial court’s decree, without framing a substantial question of law.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court highlighted the relevance of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which governs the scope of second appeals in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. This section is similar to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it existed before the 1976 amendment. The court noted that while Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was amended to restrict second appeals to cases involving a substantial question of law, Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, remains the applicable law for second appeals in Punjab and Haryana. The court emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeal is limited to errors of law or procedure and not merely errors of fact.

The relevant provision is Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which states:

“41. Second appeals in certain suits- An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court on any of the following grounds namely:- (a) the decision being contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law; (b) the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law; (c) a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force, which may possibly have produced error or defect in the decision of the case on the merits.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in overturning the first appellate court’s decision without framing a substantial question of law, as required under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
• The appellant contended that the High Court re-evaluated factual findings, which is beyond the scope of its jurisdiction in a second appeal.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157, which clarified that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, governs second appeals in Punjab and Haryana.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the High Court was correct in restoring the trial court’s decree based on a proper evaluation of the evidence.
• The respondent requested that the matter be remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration within the ambit of the applicable provisions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the factual findings of the first appellate court in a second appeal, without framing a substantial question of law, as required under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, stating that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating factual findings in a second appeal. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the case within the scope of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157 to establish that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, governs second appeals in Punjab and Haryana.
• The Court relied on Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh and Others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Avtar Singh & Ors. v. Bimla Devi & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 827 to clarify that the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeal is limited to errors of law or procedure and not errors of fact.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to adhere to the established legal framework governing second appeals in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The court emphasized that the High Court should not re-evaluate factual findings unless there is an error in law or procedure. The court’s reasoning focused on the limitations of the High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal, as defined by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and reiterated in previous Supreme Court judgments.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and the correct application of the law, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case. The court’s focus was on ensuring that the High Court adhered to its jurisdictional limitations in second appeals.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the legal provisions and precedents, and found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction. The final decision was to set aside the High Court’s judgment and remand the case for reconsideration.

The Court observed:

“The jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact.”

“Findings of fact which are unreasonable, or which are rendered by overlooking the record, therefore, per se do not appear to fall within the scope of second appellate review by the High Court.”

“We would think that the findings which have been rendered and the approach of the Court would make it incompatible with the power available to the Court within the four walls of its jurisdiction in a second appeal as laid down by this Court.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court of Punjab and Haryana must adhere to Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, when exercising second appellate jurisdiction.
• The High Court cannot interfere with factual findings of the lower appellate court unless there is an error in law or procedure.
• This judgment reinforces the limitations on the High Court’s power in second appeals and ensures that the factual findings of lower courts are not lightly overturned.
• The judgment clarifies the scope of second appeals in Punjab and Haryana, providing guidance to the High Court and lower courts.
• The case was remanded back to the High Court for reconsideration within the ambit of the applicable provisions.

Directions

The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the High Court, instructing it to consider the second appeal within the ambit of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The Court also requested the High Court to prioritize the case, considering it was a suit from 1998.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while exercising second appellate jurisdiction, must adhere to the limitations prescribed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and cannot interfere with the factual findings of the lower appellate court unless there is an error in law or procedure. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the scope of second appeals in Punjab and Haryana, as established in previous Supreme Court decisions. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it has been reiterated.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hardial Singh vs. Balbir Kaur clarifies the scope of second appeals in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Court emphasized that the High Court cannot re-evaluate factual findings unless there is an error in law or procedure, as per Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The case was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration within the correct legal framework, ensuring that the High Court adheres to its jurisdictional limitations in second appeals.

Category:

Parent category: Civil Law

Child category: Second Appeal

Child category: Punjab Courts Act, 1918

Child category: Section 41, Punjab Courts Act, 1918

FAQ

Q: What is a second appeal?

A: A second appeal is an appeal filed in a higher court against the decision of a lower appellate court. It is usually based on errors of law or procedure, not just errors of fact.

Q: What is Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918?

A: Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, defines the scope of second appeals in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It is similar to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it existed before the 1976 amendment.

Q: Can the High Court re-evaluate facts in a second appeal in Punjab and Haryana?

A: No, the High Court cannot re-evaluate factual findings in a second appeal. Its jurisdiction is limited to errors of law or procedure.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court, instructing it to reconsider the second appeal within the ambit of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?

A: This judgment clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s power in second appeals in Punjab and Haryana, ensuring that factual findings of lower courts are not lightly overturned.