2001 (4) TMI 931 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Interference with findings of fact by High Court in violation of Section 100 CPC, Burden of proof in property redemption case, Failure to formulate substantial question of law in Second Appeal.

Interference with findings of fact by High Court:
The appeal stemmed from a property redemption suit dismissed by the Trial Court but decreed by the First Appellate Court. The High Court, in the Second Appeal, reversed the First Appellate Court's decision. The main contention was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the First Appellate Court's findings of fact without framing any substantial question of law, as required by Section 100 CPC. The High Court's failure to adhere to the procedural requirements under Section 100 CPC was a crucial aspect of the appeal.

Burden of proof in property redemption case:
The property in question was subject to a redemption suit filed by one sister against another, claiming inheritance rights. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, while the First Appellate Court decreed it based on documentary evidence. However, the High Court in the Second Appeal found discrepancies in the documents relied upon by the First Appellate Court. The issue of burden of proof was central, as the High Court observed that the burden was wrongly shifted onto the defendant by the First Appellate Court. The High Court's analysis emphasized the importance of correctly interpreting the evidence presented in property cases involving inheritance rights.

Failure to formulate substantial question of law in Second Appeal:
The Supreme Court highlighted the mandatory requirement under Section 100 CPC for the High Court to precisely state and formulate substantial questions of law in Second Appeals. The failure of the High Court to adhere to this procedural mandate was a significant ground for setting aside its judgment in the Second Appeal. The Supreme Court cited previous decisions emphasizing the necessity of formulating substantial questions of law before proceeding with Second Appeals. The lack of adherence to this procedural requirement by the High Court warranted remanding the case for proper consideration of any substantial legal issues involved.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment in the Second Appeal, and remanded the case back to the High Court for reconsideration in light of the observations made regarding the procedural lapses in formulating substantial questions of law. The directive for expeditious disposal within six months was issued, with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.