The High Court's review under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is restricted to substantial questions of law, with no interference allowed on factual findings absent error.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Second appeal relating to partition claim, where positions of parties were established through documentary evidence. High Court's jurisdiction limited to substantial questions of law; not to re-appreciate evident facts or interfere with First Appellate Court's discretion. (Para 4)

(B) Legal Effect of Property Classification - Ancestral properties cannot be claimed without adequate evidence showing familial ownership; plaintiff failed to prove the properties' ancestral character, leading to dismissals. (Paras 15-17)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought partition of ancestral properties against the father; the suit was dismissed by trial and appellate courts due to lack of evidence.

Findings of Court:
The Courts found no merit in the appellant's suit for partition; he couldn't establish the properties as ancestral nor prove necessary parties were included.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the properties claimed as ancestral and the absence of necessary parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court upholds that without a substantial question of law or proof of ownership, appeals against concurrent findings of fact should not be entertained.

Result: Second appeal dismissed, confirming prior judgments.

Table of Content
1. the appeal is against lower court's judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. high court's jurisdiction under section 100 cpc. (Para 4 , 5)
3. dispute over property ownership and ancestral claims. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. entitlement shares among heirs after father's remarriage. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. first appellate court's findings and evidence evaluation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. second appeal dismissed; confirmation of lower court judgments. (Para 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.27 of 2017, dated 19.07.2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (PCR) Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.240 of 2012, dated 21.04.2017 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed the suit in O.S.No.240 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, against his father Thiru.Ramasamy and the first respondent herein claiming partition and allotment of 1/2 share in 'B' schedule property and for allotment of ½ share in the 'C' schedule amount lying in the account of his father Ramasamy in the first respondent's bank.

3. Originally, the first and second defendants filed the written statements and contested the suit. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree, dated 21.04.2017, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.27 of 2017 and the I Additional District Judge, Thanjavur, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree, dated 19.07.2025, dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff has preferred 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 ofGurnam Singh (dead) by LRs., and others Vs. Lehna Singh (dead) by LRs., reported inAIR 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 in2022 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 subs