2006 (4) TMI 505 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether, according to the true delineated scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.).
2. Validity of the Will of the deceased Chanan Singh.
3. High Court's interference with concurrent findings of fact.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope and Ambit of Section 100 C.P.C.:
The judgment emphasizes that judges must administer law according to legislative provisions, specifically under Section 100 C.P.C. It is highlighted that indiscriminate interference under this section, especially in cases devoid of substantial questions of law, leads to delays in civil justice. The court reiterates the legislative intention behind Section 100 C.P.C., which confines second appeals to substantial questions of law, not mere factual disputes. The judgment traces the evolution of Section 100 C.P.C. before and after the 1976 amendment, underscoring that the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to cases involving substantial questions of law, which must be clearly formulated at the time of admission of the appeal.

2. Validity of the Will of the Deceased Chanan Singh:
The case involves the validity of a Will purportedly executed by Chanan Singh in favor of his wife, Bhagwan Kaur. The plaintiffs, Kaki and Har Kaur, contested the Will, claiming it was not executed out of Chanan Singh's free will. The trial court, after evaluating evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and a handwriting expert, concluded that the Will was validly executed. The trial court noted that Chanan Singh had no sons, and his daughters were married and settled. The Will was executed to ensure Bhagwan Kaur's welfare, who had looked after Chanan Singh throughout his life. The trial court found that the Will was a natural document and not kept secret, as it was promptly produced before revenue authorities.

3. High Court's Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact:
The High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, primarily on the ground that a prudent man would typically bequeath property to his legal heirs. The Supreme Court found this reasoning erroneous, stating that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. by interfering with pure findings of fact. The Supreme Court emphasized that the role of the court is to examine the authenticity of the Will, not to question the testator's decisions. The judgment stresses that the High Court should not act as a third trial court on facts, as this contravenes the legislative intent of Section 100 C.P.C. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's judgment violated the provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. and set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming the validity of the Will and upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reaffirming the principles governing the scope of Section 100 C.P.C. The court underscored the importance of adhering to legislative intent and avoiding unwarranted interference with findings of fact by lower courts.