The High Court cannot re-assess evidence in second appeals, focusing only on substantial questions of law while confirming findings of lower courts.

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.9 of 2025, dated 18.09.2025 on the file of the Principal District Court, Theni, confirming the judgment and decree, made in O.S.No.223 of 2024, dated 12.11.2024 on the file of the Sub Court, Bodinayakanuur.

2. The appellants are the defendants 2 to 4. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit claiming specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 21.03.1997 and for permanent injunction restraining the original defendant from alienating the suit property originally.

3. The sole defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. Pending suit, the sole defendant died and his wife and sons were impleaded as defendants 2 to 4 and they have also filed written statement and proceeded with the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, framing necessary issues and after filing written statement of defendants 2 to 4, additional issues were framed. After full trial, the learned Subordinate Judge passed a judgment and decree, dated 12.11.2024, granting the relief of specific performance and permanent injunction as sought for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants 2 to 4 preferred an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2025 and the learned Principal District Judge, Theni, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment, dated 18.09.2025, dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the defendants 2 to 4 have filed the present second appeal.

4.When the above second appeal was taken for admission, I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. 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.”

6. 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 rig