The High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law, with no re-appraisal of factual findings made by lower courts; the burden of proof for joint family property lies with the plaintiff.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Appeal against concurrent findings - The jurisdiction of the High Court in a second appeal is strictly confined to substantial questions of law; it should not interfere with the factual findings or re-appreciate evidence already considered by the lower courts. (Paras 4-5)

(B) Joint family properties - Proof of existence of joint family and property classification - The plaintiff must prove existence of joint family nucleus capable of yielding surplus income for property purchase; burden lies on the plaintiff to establish joint ownership. (Paras 10-12)

(C) Evidential requirements - The plaintiff's failure to provide evidence for claims stated led to dismissal of partition suit. (Paras 12-15)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought partition of ancestral properties amidst disputes over property ownership and classification. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to an appeal which was also dismissed, resulting in the current second appeal.

Findings of Court:
The courts below dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to prove claims related to joint family properties or classifying the suit properties correctly.

Issues: 1) Whether the suit properties could be classified as joint family properties? 2) Did the plaintiff establish the necessary evidence for his claims?

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that without establishing the existence of a joint family income-generating nucleus, no presumption of joint ownership arises, and the burden of proof fundamentally lies with the plaintiff for his claims.

Result: Second Appeal dismissed, confirming the findings of the lower courts.

JUDGMENT :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.25 of 2019, dated 25.07.2025, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Karur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.123 of 2007, dated 20.06.2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.123 of 2007, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur seeking partition and allotment of 1/16^th shares in the suit properties. The defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed their written statement and contested the suit.

3. The learned Principal District Munsif, Karur after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2011, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.25 of 2018 and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.07.2025 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.

4. At the outset, it is necessary to refer the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court for High Courts in deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , given in the case of Gurnam Singh (dead) by LRs., and others Vs. Lehna Singh (dead) by LRs., reported in AIR 2019 SC 1441 , that the jurisdiction of the High Court in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:

“18. Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in the case of Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264, despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law.”

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 has specifically held that right of appeal is not automatic and right of appeal is conferred by statute and when statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to the High Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the principles relating to Section 100 C.P.C., which are as follows;

“(i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law.

(ii) The High Court should

Click Here to Read the rest of this document