Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 1069
Supreme Court
Honble RUMA PAL, J. Honble DALVEER BHANDARI, J.
Gurdev Kaur & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Kaki & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2083 of 2006
Decided On : April 18, 2006
A.S. Jattana, Dinesh Verma and A.P. Mohanty, Advocates, for Appellants Sudhir Walia and Mahinder Singh Dahiya, Advocates, for Respondents
Headnote:(a) C.P.C., Sec. 100 – Scope and principles of second appeal – Whether, according to the scope of Section 100 C.P.C., the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact? – Held – High Court cannot interfere – High Court can interfere only where substantial questions of law are involved and have to formulated the question of law and only thereafter it can proceed to decide them – Legislature never intended the second appeal to become a third trial on facts. (Paras 45 to 52 and 72)(b) C.P.C., Sec. 33 and Order 20 Rule 3, 4, 5– Pronouncement of judgment – Duty of Judges – Judges must administer law according to the provisions of law – It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative intention in the process of adjudication – Held – Justice has to be administered in accordance with law. (Paras 2 & 71)(c) Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sec. 74, 75 and 63 – Construction of Wills – Court cannot sit in appeal over the right or wrong of the testators decision – Court can examine whether the same was or was not executed by the testator – The contents of a Will are to be appreciated in the context of the testators circumstances and not vis a vis the rules of intestate succession.
(2). Judges must administer law according to the provisions of law. It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative intention in the process of adjudication. Justice administered according to individuals whim, desire, inclination and notion of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos.
(3). Indiscriminate and frequent interference, under Section 100 CPC in cases which are totally devoid of any substantial question of law is not only against the legislative intention but is also the main cause of huge pendency of second appeals in the High Courts leading to colossal delay in the administration of justice in civil cases in our country.
(4). Despite declaration of law in numerous judgments, it is evident that the scope and ambit of Section 100 CPC has not been properly appreciated and applied in a large number of cases. We are, once again making a serious endeavour to discern legislative intention, ambit and scope of interference under Section 100 CPC. We plan to carry out this exercise by critically examining important judgments decided before and after 1976 amendment in Section 100 CPC. This effort is made with the hope that in future the High Courts would decide according to the scope of Section 100 CPC and this Court may not be compelled to interfere with the judgments delivered under Section 100 CPC.
Brief factual background
(5). This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 1.8.2003 passed in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 885 of 1983. By this judgment the High Court has set aside the concurrent findings of facts of the courts below. The High Court consequently cancelled the mutation of the property belonging to the deceased Chanan Singh in favour of his wife Bhagwan Kaur and directed that the property be mutated in favour of the heirs of the deceased Chanan Singh in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This Court on 3.11.2003, while issuing notice on the special leave petition, directed the status quo be maintained in the meantime. Now this appeal has been placed before us for final adjudication.
(6). Brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal, are recapitulated as under:
The case relates to the validity of the will of the deceased Chanan Singh. The relationship between the parties is as follows. The deceased Chanan Singh, s/o Hira Singh died on 6.2.1969. He had two wives. The first wife was Sham Kaur, who died before Chanan Singh and the second wife was Bhagwan Kaur. From the first wife Sham Kaur he had two daughters Kaki and Har Kaur. Har Kaur also died on 29.9.1984. Kaki and Har Kaur are the plaintiffs in the civil suit filed before the Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Barnala.
(7). Bhagwan Kaur also had three daughters-Dalip Kaur, Gurdev Kaur and Mukhtiar Kaur. Chanan Singh, the deceased did not have a son either from Bhagwan Kaur or from Sham Kaur. The plaintiffs Kaki and Har Kaur filed a suit for joint possession of the property of deceased Chanan Singh. It is not disputed that the deceased Chanan Singh had two wives Bhagwan Kaur and Sham Kaur. According to the plaintiffs Kaki and Har Kaur, the deceased Chanan Singh did not execute any will out of his free will because he was not in a position to protect his own welfare and in fact he was not in a position to execute any will at all.
(8). Chanan Singh died on 6.2.1969 in Bamala and the defendant Bhagwan Kaur got the mutation of inheritance of Chanan Singh sanctioned from the authority concerned on the basis of the alleged will dated 18.1.1969. The case of the plaintiffs is that they never received any notice about the sanctioning of mutation and this has been carried out by defendant Bhagwan Kaur in connivance with the Revenue Authorities.
(9). According to the plaintiffs, the parties are governed by the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiffs were entitled to 1/3rd share in the inheritance of Chanan Singh. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants are in ille
