1. Second appeal under Section 100 CPC — Specific performance of agreement to sale — Concurrent findings of fact challenged. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 888
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Urjaram S/o Shri Khumaram – Appellant
Versus
Rika Ram S/o Shri Gokul Ram – Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 36 OF 2026
Decided On : 09-10-2026
Important Points
Second appeals under Section 100 CPC are limited to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding unless patently perverse or illegal, as High Courts cannot function as a third court of facts to re-appreciate evidence.
Subject
Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure - Second Appeal
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Scope and jurisdiction - Substantial question of law - Second appeal lies only where the case involves a substantial question of law - Jurisdictional power is not intended to provide another round of factual adjudication - Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below carry a presumption of correctness and sanctity, and interference is permissible only when such findings are demonstrated to be patently perverse, based upon no evidence, suffering from manifest illegality, or resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. (Paras 6.2, 6.3)
(B) Re-appreciation of evidence - Impermissibility in second appeal - High Court while exercising second appellate jurisdiction is not expected to function as a third court of facts - Re-appreciation of evidence is wholly impermissible unless conclusions arrived at shock judicial conscience on account of palpable perversity or complete misapplication of settled legal principles. (Paras 6.3, 6.4)
(C) Finality of adjudication - Ultimate object of the adjudicatory process is not merely to keep a dispute alive, but to bring it to a point of finality - A litigant cannot be permitted to seek repeated factual re-examination in second appeal without demonstrating the existence of a substantial question of law. (Paras 6.5, 6.7)
Facts of the case:
A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale agricultural land and for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent. The appellants disputed the execution of the agreement, contending the transaction was a mortgage. After remand and subsequent proceedings, the suit was decreed by the trial court and the decree was subsequently affirmed by the first appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were neither perverse nor illegal. It was observed that the appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law requiring consideration under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial and first appellate courts were perverse or illegal, and whether a substantial question of law arose to warrant interference in a second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and cannot be used to reopen factual controversies conclusively adjudicated by lower courts. Concurrent findings are binding unless they are patently perverse or based on no evidence, as the High Court cannot substitute its own view for a possible alternative view.
Result: Civil Second Appeal dismissed.
(B) Re-appreciation of evidence - Impermissibility in second appeal - High Court while exercising second appellate jurisdiction is not expected to function as a third court of facts - Re-appreciation of evidence is wholly impermissible unless conclusions arrived at shock judicial conscience on account of palpable perversity or complete misapplication of settled legal principles. (Paras 6.3, 6.4)
(C) Finality of adjudication - Ultimate object of the adjudicatory process is not merely to keep a dispute alive, but to bring it to a point of finality - A litigant cannot be permitted to seek repeated factual re-examination in second appeal without demonstrating the existence of a substantial question of law. (Paras 6.5, 6.7)
Facts of the case:
A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale agricultural land and for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent. The appellants disputed the execution of the agreement, contending the transaction was a mortgage. After remand and subsequent proceedings, the suit was decreed by the trial court and the decree was subsequently affirmed by the first appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were neither perverse nor illegal. It was observed that the appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law requiring consideration under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial and first appellate courts were perverse or illegal, and whether a substantial question of law arose to warrant interference in a second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and cannot be used to reopen factual controversies conclusively adjudicated by lower courts. Concurrent findings are binding unless they are patently perverse or based on no evidence, as the High Court cannot substitute its own view for a possible alternative view.
Result: Civil Second Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhinav Jain
For the Respondent: Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Mr. Jitendra Mohan Chaudhary, Mr. Sarthak Asopa, Ms. Vaishnav Nikita
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhinav Jain
For the Respondent: Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Mr. Jitendra Mohan Chaudhary, Mr. Sarthak Asopa, Ms. Vaishnav Nikita
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued illegality in clubbing issues, improper burden of proof, perversity, limitation, and no binding effect on daughters' shares. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. No substantial question of law raised — concurrent findings of fact cannot be reappreciated in second appeal unless perverse or illegal. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Second appeal dismissed as devoid of merit and force — concurrent findings upheld. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
JUDGMENT :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the appellants assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Appeal Decree Case No.26/2018, whereby the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No.12/2007, decreeing the suit preferred by the plaintiff- respondent for specific performance, came to be affirmed. The appellants seek setting aside of the aforesaid judgments and decrees.
2. The brief facts of the case apposite for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the Respondent-Plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale dated 10.09.1998 and permanent injunction, alleging execution of the said agreement by the original Defendants in respect of agricultural land measuring 17 Bighas 1 Biswa for a consideration of Rs.28,000/-, which was stated to have been paid in full.
2.1 It was averred that the sale deed was to be executed as and when demanded by the Plaintiff, and upon his approach on 05.03.2007, the Defendants refused to execute the same, giving rise to the cause of action. The Defendants disputed execution of the agreement, asserting that the transaction was in fact a mortgage and that the document had been manipulated by the Plaintiff.
2.2 The suit was initially decreed on 22.01.2013, whereafter the matter was remanded by the Appellate Court on 19.03.2015 for framing of additional issues. Upon remand and after recording evidence, the learned Trial Court again decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2017, which was affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.09.2025. Hence, the present second appeal has been preferred by the Appellants-Defendants.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants vehemently submitted that the Courts below have committed manifest illegality in decreeing the suit by clubbing several material issues and by failing to record independent findings thereon, besides improperly framing the issues and shifting the burden of proof upon the Defendants. It was contended that the execution of the alleged agreement, passing of consideration, possession and the Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness were not duly proved, particularly in view of the Plaintiff’s own admissions regarding want of funds and refusal by the Defendants. Learned counsel further contended that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation and that the alleged agreement could not bind the shares of the daughters, who had acquired rights in the property by succession. On these grounds, it was urged that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, contrary to the evidence and settled principles of law, and the impugned judgments and decrees deserve to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are just, proper and in accordance with law. It was, therefore, contended that no interference is warranted with the impugned judgments and decrees, and the prayer advanced on behalf of the appellants deserves to be rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and decrees, the orders passed by the Courts below from time to time, as also the material available on record.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and upon a careful scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court finds that the controversy sought to be raised in the present second appeal has already travelled through the process of adjudication on more than one occasion.
6.1 It is not in dispute that the suit was initially decreed in the year 2013. The matter thereafter ca
