2001 (3) TMI 1044 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 100 vis-à-vis Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act 1918.
2. Validity of the High Court's jurisdiction in entertaining second appeals without a substantial question of law.
3. Repugnancy between the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act.
4. Validity of the will dated 30th March 1968.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 100 vis-à-vis Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act 1918:
The core issue revolves around whether Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, overrides Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act. The Court referred to the earlier decision in Banarsi Dass v. Brig. Maharaja Sukhjit Singh & Another, which was based on a concession that the second appeal under Section 41 was maintainable. The Court concluded that a concession cannot be considered a binding precedent.

2. Validity of the High Court's jurisdiction in entertaining second appeals without a substantial question of law:
The Court examined the amended Section 100, which restricts the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain second appeals only if there is a substantial question of law. The High Court's decision to entertain the second appeal without framing such a question was found to be in error.

3. Repugnancy between the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act:
The Court analyzed the repugnancy doctrine under Article 254 of the Constitution. It was held that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, being inconsistent with the amended Section 100, stands overridden by the latter. The Court emphasized the supremacy of parliamentary legislation in matters of procedural law.

4. Validity of the will dated 30th March 1968:
The High Court had delved into the evidence regarding the genuineness of the will dated 30th March 1968. The Court noted that the High Court's findings were based on a thorough examination of the evidence. However, the Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of fact should generally not be disturbed unless there is an element of perversity.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act is repugnant to the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's order in Second Appeal No.762 of 1986 was set aside, and the lower Appellate Court's order was restored. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.