The High Court of Chhattisgarh has reaffirmed the foundational principle that second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not platforms for re-appreciating evidence. This judgment underscores the limited scope of appellate intervention when two lower courts have independently arrived at the same factual conclusion, reinforcing judicial restraint in civil litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Smt. Shyamkunwar, filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession over 7.16 acres of agricultural land in Village Bhatheekuda. She claimed the land was ancestral property originally belonging to her father, Bodhwa, who had partitioned it between her and her brother, Ramji. After both Bodhwa and Ramji died, Ramji’s wife, Dhankunwar, allegedly obtained mutation of the entire property through a forged relinquishment deed. Subsequently, Dhankunwar’s husband, the appellant Lochan Prasad, claimed ownership through a Will dated 27.12.1996, which he alleged was executed by Dhankunwar.
Procedural History
- 2016: Civil Suit No. 51-A/2016 filed by plaintiff in Civil Judge’s Court, Katghora
- 2019: Trial Court decreed the suit, holding the Will unproved and void; declared plaintiff as exclusive owner
- 2019: First Appeal filed by defendant No.1; dismissed by Additional District Judge
- 2024: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC before High Court of Chhattisgarh
Relief Sought
The appellant sought reversal of the decrees passed by the Trial and First Appellate Courts, arguing that the Will was validly executed and that the decree granting exclusive title exceeded the plaintiff’s pleaded claim of a ½ share.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts in the absence of a substantial question of law, particularly where the validity of a Will is challenged on grounds of non-examination of attesting witnesses and improper mutation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that the Will (Exhibit A-1) was duly executed and registered, and its validity was established under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He argued that the Courts erred in rejecting the Will solely due to non-examination of attesting witnesses, despite the document being registered. He further asserted that the decree granting exclusive title to the plaintiff was beyond her pleaded claim of a ½ share, rendering it illegal under Order VII Rule 7 CPC.
For the Respondent
The respondents, supported by the State, argued that the Will was not proved in accordance with law because no attesting witness was examined, and no explanation was offered for their non-appearance. They emphasized that mutation during the testator’s lifetime was legally invalid, as a Will operates only upon death. They also relied on Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to establish that upon the death of Dhankunwar and her daughter Gulapabai, the property devolved exclusively upon the plaintiff as the sole surviving heir of Ramji.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that the scope of a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is strictly confined to substantial questions of law. It reiterated the settled principle that concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts are binding unless shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law.
"The Courts have recorded a categorical finding that none of the attesting witnesses to the Will were examined, nor was any explanation furnished regarding their non-examination. In view of the mandatory requirement of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the said finding cannot be faulted with."
The Court held that the failure to examine attesting witnesses rendered the Will legally unproven, irrespective of its registration. It further noted that mutation of property during the lifetime of the testator was legally unsustainable, as a Will has no operative effect until death. The Court also rejected the argument that the decree exceeded the pleadings, explaining that the Trial Court’s conclusion on succession under Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was a natural legal consequence of the facts established, and not a departure from the pleadings.
The Court cited State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal to reinforce that interference is permissible only if the finding is legally untenable, de hors pleadings, or based on misreading of evidence - none of which were demonstrated here.
The Verdict
The appellant’s second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were neither perverse nor legally erroneous. The plaintiff’s title was upheld, and the decree for possession and injunction was affirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Concurrent Findings Are Binding
- Practitioners must treat concurrent findings of fact as conclusive in second appeals unless a clear legal error or perversity is demonstrated
- Re-appreciation of evidence, even if plausible, is impermissible under Section 100 CPC
- Focus arguments on legal misapplication, not factual disagreement
Will Execution Requires More Than Registration
- Registration alone does not satisfy Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act
- Attesting witnesses must be examined unless their non-examination is satisfactorily explained
- Courts will not infer execution from registration in the absence of witness testimony
Succession Claims Must Align With Statutory Framework
- Courts will apply Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to determine devolution even if pleadings are limited
- A decree granting broader relief than pleaded is not void if it flows logically from proven facts and statutory succession rules
- Practitioners must anticipate statutory succession outcomes when drafting pleadings
