The right to inherit properties can be lost due to delay in claiming partition, as seen in cases of ouster and adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.16 of 2019 dated 12.11.2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.30 of 2015 dated 31.10.2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vedasandur.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 313 of 2011 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul claiming partition and allotment of 1/10^th share in the suit properties. The third defendant and the defendants 5 and 6 filed separate written statements and contested the suit. The defendants 1, 2, 4 and 7 to 9 remained exparte. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Vedasandur and the same was taken on file in O.S.No.30 of 2015. The learned Subordinate Judge, Vedasandur, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017 dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2019 and the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.11.2024 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.

3. 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.”

4. 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 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 Supr