9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's jurisdiction in reappraising evidence and reversing concurrent findings of fact. 2. Legitimacy of the High Court addressing the genuineness and validity of the settlement deed and will without framing a substantial question of law. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the High Court's jurisdiction in reappraising evidence and reversing concurrent findings of fact: The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by reappraising evidence and reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The High Court had held that the properties listed as item nos. 22 to 26 and 29 were not self-acquired properties of Mottaya Poosali but were purchased with joint family funds. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 100 CPC restricts the High Court to hearing second appeals only on substantial questions of law. The High Court cannot reappraise evidence or set aside findings of fact unless it is demonstrated that such findings were perverse or based on no evidence. The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait and Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, to underline that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. Upon reviewing the facts, the Supreme Court noted that the properties in question were purchased by Mottaya Poosali between 1952 and 1956 and were treated as his self-acquired properties in the 1970 partition deed. The High Court's reappraisal of evidence and subsequent finding that these properties were acquired with joint family funds was deemed incorrect. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by reversing the concurrent findings of fact without a substantial question of law. 2. Legitimacy of the High Court addressing the genuineness and validity of the settlement deed and will without framing a substantial question of law: The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court was justified in questioning the genuineness and validity of the settlement deed dated 22.03.1977 and the will dated 23.03.1977 executed by Mottaya Poosali, despite no substantial question of law being framed regarding these issues. The Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, the High Court is confined to the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission or subsequently. In this case, the substantial question of law framed pertained only to whether certain properties were joint family properties available for partition. The High Court did not frame any substantial question of law regarding the validity and genuineness of the settlement deed and the will. The Supreme Court found that the respondents did not challenge the genuineness or due execution of the settlement deed and the will in their pleadings, evidence, or memorandum of grounds of the second appeal. Therefore, the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to address these issues without framing an additional substantial question of law. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings on the validity and genuineness of the settlement deed and the will were vitiated and could not be sustained. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reappraising evidence and addressing issues not framed as substantial questions of law. The properties listed as item nos. 22 to 26 and 29 were confirmed as the self-acquired properties of Mottaya Poosali, and the settlement deed and will were deemed valid and genuine. There was no order as to costs.
|
