The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a second appeal, the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to errors in law or procedure, and it cannot interfere with findings of fact based on re-appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

Leave granted.

1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are plaintiffs, filed the suit seeking declaration of title and prohibitory injunction. The first defendant was the mother-in-law of the first plaintiff and the paternal grandmother of the second plaintiff. The appellant is the brother-in-law of the first plaintiff that is he is the brother of Sucha Singh.

2. The suit was laid on the following basis.

Shri Sucha Singh, who was the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff, passed away on 21.04.1998. The case was set-up against the mutation which was allegedly illegally carried out and as a result of which, in regard to the 1/3 right, the name of the defendants were entered.

The case of the plaintiffs is that Sucha Singh has left behind a will dated 19.04.1998 before he died on 21.04.1998 which was registered on 18.06.1998. Under the will, the plaintiffs were bequeathed all his rights. The appellant and the other defendants contested the suit and contended that the will dated 19.4.1998 was forged. It was their case that since Sucha Singh died intestate, the plaintiffs and the mother of Sucha Singh being Class I heirs inherited 1/3 right each. On the strength of the said succession, the mother executed a will dated 16.07.1998 (D1) in favour of her two other sons of whom the appellant is one. The matter went to trial. The trial Court decreed the suit. The trial Court found that plaintiffs succeeded and declared them the owners in view of will dated 19.04.1998.

3. The defendants appealed. In the first appeal, the appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court. The appellate Court on appreciation of the evidence has found that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the will dated 19.04.1998. It was inter-alia found that the mother of Sucha Singh was living with him and there was nothing to indicate as to why he would exclude his own mother. It was further found that there were certain other circumstances including the registration of the will after the death of the testator which were considered by the first appellate Court in concluding that the will dated 19.04.1998 could not be accepted as genuine. It was also found that D1 will was valid. On the strength of the appreciation of the evidence the fist appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and the mother of Sucha Singh was found to have legal right with the plaintiffs.

4. It was now the turn of the plaintiffs to appeal by purporting to invoke Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is in the said second appeal that the judgment which is impugned before us came to be passed.

The High Court in the impugned judgment has restored the decree of the trial Court. In the course of the judgment, the High Court has proceeded to find that the trial Court was right in finding that the will dated 19.04.1998 could be acted upon.

5. We have heard Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Partha Sil, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs.

At the time when notice was issued in this case on 06.03.2017, we notice that what was projected before this Court was that substantial questions of law were not framed and without that the second appeal has been allowed by the High Court. It was on this premise that this Court issued notice. Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, learned senior counsel, would, in fact, point out that this Court had already taken a view regarding the provisions of law applicable as regards the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a second appeal in the decision reported in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others vs. Chandrika and Others, (2016) 6 SCC 157. This judgment was rendered on 25.02.2016. In fact, learned senior counsel would point out that at the time when notice was issued by this Court noticing that substantial question of law was not framed, the judgment in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others (supra) had not b