2004 (3) TMI 777 - SC - Indian Laws

Legitimacy of Kannan and his entitlement to the property - Entitlement of plaintiffs to the A Schedule property by survivorship and inheritance - Validity of the settlement deed and gift deed - High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC - HELD THAT - In our opinion, the High Court has erred in holding that the appellants have failed to establish their title to the suit property evidently without appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective by making only reference to portions of evidence having once decided to reappreciate the evidence. The High Court, in our opinion, ought to have examined the entire evidence both oral and documentary instead of only a portion thereof especially while deciding to look into and reappreciate the evidence despite the limited scope under Section 100 CPC. In our view, the learned single Judge of the High Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in reassessing, reappreciating and making a roving enquiry by entering into the factual arena of the case which is not the one contemplated under the limited scope of jurisdiction of a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. In the present case, the lower appellate Court fairly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the appellants suit was to be decreed and that the appellants are entitled to the relief as prayed for. Even assuming that another view is possible on a reappreciation of the same evidence, that should not have been done by the High Court as it cannot be said that the view taken by the first appellate court was based on no material. To say the least the approach of the High Court was not proper. It is the obligation of the Courts of law to further the clear intentment of the legislature and not frustrate it by excluding the same. This Court in a catena of decisions held that where findings of fact by the lower appellate Court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on reappreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of the final court of fact. We, therefore, hold that the judgment of the High Court under the circumstances cannot be sustained and judgment of the lower appellate Court in A.S. No. 21 of 1983 of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur is restored. The appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of Kannan and his entitlement to the property.
2. Entitlement of plaintiffs to the A Schedule property by survivorship and inheritance.
3. Validity of the settlement deed and gift deed.
4. High Court's formulation of substantial questions of law.
5. High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legitimacy of Kannan and his entitlement to the property
The learned single Judge of the High Court held that Muruvi, mother of Kannan, was not the legally wedded wife of Munian. Consequently, Kannan could not be considered a legitimate son, and thus, the appellants were not entitled to the suit property by virtue of survivorship or inheritance on Kannan's death.

Issue 2: Entitlement of plaintiffs to the A Schedule property by survivorship and inheritance
The appellants claimed entitlement to the A Schedule property by survivorship and inheritance. However, the High Court found that the source of Kannan's title to the property had not been traced, and thus, the appellants were not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

Issue 3: Validity of the settlement deed and gift deed
The learned District Munsif held that Yengachari Muniammal's limited right got enlarged by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, making the settlement deed executed by her in favor of Pavalakodi Ammal valid. Consequently, the gift deed by Pavalakodi Ammal in favor of the first respondent was also valid.

Issue 4: High Court's formulation of substantial questions of law
The High Court formulated a fresh set of substantial questions of law at the time of final hearing, which was not in accordance with Section 100 CPC. The High Court failed to record reasons for formulating new substantial questions of law and did not put the opposite party on notice, thereby denying them a fair opportunity to meet the new points.

Issue 5: High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and making a roving enquiry into the facts, which is not permissible under Section 100 CPC. The High Court's approach was improper as it substituted its own findings for those of the first appellate court, which had fairly appreciated the evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted illegally and in excess of its jurisdiction by formulating new substantial questions of law without proper notice and reappreciating evidence. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the judgment of the lower appellate court in A.S. No. 21 of 1983 of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, was restored. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.