Supreme Court clarifies the scope of second appeals under the Punjab Courts Act: Lehna Singh vs. Gurnam Singh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: May 16, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 429

Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a High Court re-evaluate factual findings in a second appeal? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question while examining the scope of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and its relationship with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This case revolves around a property dispute and the extent to which a High Court can interfere with the factual findings of lower appellate courts. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court’s power is limited and it cannot re-appreciate evidence to overturn factual findings.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute between Lehna Singh and Gurnam Singh. Lehna Singh filed a suit for perpetual injunction, claiming ownership of the suit land along with his brother, Bhagwan Singh. Bhagwan Singh, who was unmarried and issueless, allegedly executed a will in favor of Gurnam Singh and others. Lehna Singh contested this will, asserting his right to the property through natural succession. The defendants, including Gurnam Singh, claimed that Bhagwan Singh had executed a will in their favor on 17.01.1980. Earlier, Bhagwan Singh had executed an unregistered will on 17.08.1979. The trial court ruled in favor of Lehna Singh, stating that the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The first appellate court reversed this decision, leading to a second appeal in the High Court, which sided with Lehna Singh. This led to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court ruled that the defendants failed to prove the genuineness of the will, favoring Lehna Singh’s claim through natural succession. The First Appellate Court reversed this, holding that the trial court was wrongly persuaded by insignificant circumstances. The High Court, in a second appeal, set aside the appellate court’s decree and restored the trial court’s judgment. The High Court framed two substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Appellate Court can reverse the findings recorded by the trial court without addressing the specific findings of the trial court? (ii) Whether the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court is perverse and outcome of misreading of evidence? The High Court answered both questions in favor of Lehna Singh, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and its relation to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act outlines the grounds for second appeals to the High Court, which includes decisions contrary to law or custom, failure to determine material issues, or substantial errors in procedure. The Supreme Court noted that Section 41 of the Punjab Act does not mandate the framing of a substantial question of law for entertaining a second appeal. The Court also compared Section 41 of the Punjab Act with Section 100 of the CPC before its amendment in 1976, noting that they are in pari materia.

Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 states:

“41. Second Appeals – (1) 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 custom or usage having the force of law :
(b) the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law :
(c) a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908) , 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 upon the merits ;
[Explanation – A question relating to the existence or validity of a custom or usage shall be deemed to be a question of law within the meaning of this section :]
(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.”

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (before 1976 amendment) states:

“100. Second appeal. —(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any court subordinate to a 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 this Code 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 upon the merits.
(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s (Lehna Singh’s) Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that the High Court’s judgment was correct because the First Appellate Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s findings without proper justification.
• The petitioner contended that the High Court was right to interfere with the First Appellate Court’s decision, as the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
• The petitioner relied on the principle that a finding of fact erroneously or perversely recorded by the First Appellate Court can be interfered with by the High Court.
• The petitioner argued that the High Court correctly applied Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, which allows for interference in cases of erroneous findings of fact.

Respondent’s (Gurnam Singh’s) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the Supreme Court’s initial judgment was correct because the High Court had re-appreciated evidence, which is beyond its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• The respondents submitted that even under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to substitute its own decision for that of the First Appellate Court.
• The respondents asserted that the First Appellate Court’s finding was based on evidence and should not have been overturned by the High Court.
• The respondents claimed that they had proved the will in accordance with the law and that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding it.

Innovation of Arguments:

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the petitioner’s reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. [(2016) 6 SCC 157], which upheld the validity of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act. This argument highlighted that the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeal should be determined by Section 41 of the Punjab Act and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1976. The respondents, on the other hand, focused on the limitations of the High Court’s power to interfere with factual findings, even under Section 41.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this judgment, as it was a review of an earlier judgment. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court’s interference with the First Appellate Court’s findings was justified under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and whether the Supreme Court’s initial judgment was correct in holding that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the scope of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act and Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

• Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. [(2016) 6 SCC 157] – Supreme Court: This Constitution Bench judgment upheld the validity of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act and clarified that second appeals in the Punjab and Haryana High Court are governed by Section 41, which is in pari materia with the unamended Section 100 of the CPC.
• Kulwant Kaur & Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Maan (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. [(2001) 4 SCC 262] – Supreme Court: This judgment, which was overruled by Pankajakshi, had held that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act was repugnant to Section 100 of the CPC.
• Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. [(2019) 17 SCC 71] – Supreme Court: This case reiterated that the scope of interference in second appeals before the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the same as under the unamended Section 100 of the CPC, relying on Pankajakshi.
• Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. [(2023) SCC Online SC 875] – Supreme Court: This case reaffirmed the legal position regarding Section 41 of the Punjab Act and the unamended Section 100 of the CPC, citing Pankajakshi.

On the limitations of the High Court’s power to interfere with factual findings:

• Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya [AIR 1959 SC 57] – Supreme Court: This case clarified that the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact based on an appreciation of evidence.
• Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir Singh Choudhri [1890 SCC OnLine PC 10 : (1889 -90) 17 IA 122] – Privy Council: This case established that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding of fact.
• Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Uma Charan Mandal [1923 SCC OnLine PC 31 : (1924 -25) 29 CWN 131] – Privy Council: This case clarified that a question of fact does not become a question of law merely because historical documents are construed.
• Wali Mohammad v. Mohd. Bakhsh [1929 SCC OnLine PC 115 : (1929 -30) 57 IA 86 : ILR (1930) 11 Lah 199] – Privy Council: This case held that a finding of fact based on documentary evidence remains a finding of fact.
• Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commr. [(1981) 2 SCC 103] – Supreme Court: This case reiterated that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on findings of fact, even if erroneous.
• Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai [AIR 1963 SC 1203 : (1963) 1 SCR 456] – Supreme Court: This case held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding of fact.
• V. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar [AIR 1963 SC 302 : (1963) 3 SCR 604] – Supreme Court: This case reiterated that the High Court cannot interfere with conclusions of fact recorded by the lower appellate court.

On the duties of the First Appellate Court:

• Chintamani Ammal vs. Nandagopal Gounder and Anr. [(2007) 4 SCC 163] – Supreme Court: This case discussed the requirements for the First Appellate Court to reverse a trial court’s findings, emphasizing the need for sufficient reasons.
• Jagannath v. Arulappa & Anr. [(2005) 12 SCC 303] – Supreme Court: This case opined that it is improper to allow a first appeal without addressing the specific findings of the trial court.
• H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (Dead) By Lrs. [(2005) 10 SCC 243] – Supreme Court: This case stated that the First Appellate Court is required to address all issues and determine the appeal with cogent reasons.

Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed its earlier judgment and acknowledged that it had erred in holding that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. The Court clarified that the applicable provision was Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, which is in pari materia with the unamended Section 100 of the CPC. The Court held that the High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court because the First Appellate Court did not properly address the findings of the trial court. The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s judgment, finding that the trial court’s findings were based on evidence and were neither perverse nor illegal.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied heavily on Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. [(2016) 6 SCC 157]* to establish that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act is the applicable law for second appeals in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and that it is in pari materia with the unamended Section 100 of the CPC.
• The Court overruled Kulwant Kaur & Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Maan (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. [(2001) 4 SCC 262]*, which had held that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act was repugnant to Section 100 of the CPC.
• The Court followed Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. [(2019) 17 SCC 71]* and Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. [(2023) SCC Online SC 875]* to reiterate the legal position established in Pankajakshi.
• The Court cited Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya [AIR 1959 SC 57]*, Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir Singh Choudhri [1890 SCC OnLine PC 10 : (1889 -90) 17 IA 122]*, Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Uma Charan Mandal [1923 SCC OnLine PC 31 : (1924 -25) 29 CWN 131]*, Wali Mohammad v. Mohd. Bakhsh [1929 SCC OnLine PC 115 : (1929 -30) 57 IA 86 : ILR (1930) 11 Lah 199]*, Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commr. [(1981) 2 SCC 103]*, Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai [AIR 1963 SC 1203 : (1963) 1 SCR 456]*, and V. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar [AIR 1963 SC 302 : (1963) 3 SCR 604]* to emphasize the limitations on the High Court’s power to interfere with factual findings.
• The Court referred to Chintamani Ammal vs. Nandagopal Gounder and Anr. [(2007) 4 SCC 163]*, Jagannath v. Arulappa & Anr. [(2005) 12 SCC 303]*, and H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (Dead) By Lrs. [(2005) 10 SCC 243]* to highlight the duties of the First Appellate Court when reversing a trial court’s decision.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural impropriety of the First Appellate Court in overturning the trial court’s judgment without adequately addressing its findings. The Court emphasized that the First Appellate Court should have engaged with the trial court’s reasoning and explained why it disagreed with the trial court’s conclusions. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal principles regarding the limitations on the High Court’s power to interfere with factual findings in second appeals. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the appellate process is followed correctly, and that factual findings are not overturned without proper justification. The Court also emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeal is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, which is in pari materia with the unamended Section 100 of the CPC.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) than by the factual aspects of the case (30%). The court focused on the correct application of legal principles and procedures, particularly concerning the jurisdiction of the appellate courts and the limitations on their powers to interfere with factual findings.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. The court rejected the argument that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC, clarifying that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act was applicable. The court also rejected the argument that the First Appellate Court’s decision was valid, emphasizing that the First Appellate Court had not properly addressed the trial court”s findings. The Court’s logical reasoning was based on the correct application of legal principles and procedures, rather than on an independent assessment of the facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeals under the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, is governed by Section 41 of the Act, which is in pari materia with the unamended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This means that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The First Appellate Court must also address the findings of the Trial Court while reversing it. The Supreme Court clarified that its initial judgment was incorrect in stating that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s interference was justified because the First Appellate Court had not adequately addressed the trial court’s findings.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, set aside its earlier judgment dated 13.03.2019, and dismissed the Civil Appeal. The High Court’s judgment was upheld, and the trial court’s judgment was restored.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving second appeals in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The key implications are:

• Clarification of Jurisdiction: The judgment clarifies that the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeals is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, which is in pari materia with the unamended Section 100 of the CPC. This means that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
• Duties of First Appellate Court: The judgment emphasizes the duties of the First Appellate Court to engage with the reasoning and findings of the trial court when reversing its decision. The First Appellate Court must address the specific findings of the trial court and explain why it disagrees with the trial court’s conclusions.
• Consistency in Application of Law: The judgment ensures a consistent application of the law by reaffirming that the High Court cannot act as a court of fact in second appeals. The High Court’s role is limited to addressing substantial questions of law and ensuring that the lower courts have followed the correct procedures.
• Impact on Property Disputes: The judgment has a direct impact on property disputes in Punjab and Haryana, as it clarifies the scope of second appeals. Parties involved in property disputes must now be aware of the limitations on the High Court’s power to interfere with factual findings.
• Precedent for Other States: This judgment may also serve as a precedent for other states where similar provisions exist regarding second appeals, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural norms and limitations on appellate powers.