The jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC limits High Courts to substantial questions of law and does not allow interference with factual findings.

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.60 of 2018, dated 04.07.2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.263 of 2008, dated 20.06.2016 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul.

2. The appellant is the first plaintiff. The appellant/first plaintiff along with respondents 2 to 4/plaintiffs 2 to 4 filed a suit, directing the defendant to receive Rs.90,000/- payable by the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and to execute a document cancelling the sale deed, dated 26.10.2007 or in alternative, directing the defendant to pay Rs.2,20,000/- with interest at Rs.2/- per Rs.100 per month from 26.10.2007 till payment.

3. The first respondent/defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree, dated 20.06.2016, partly allowing the suit directing the defendant to pay Rs.2,20,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 26.10.2007 till payment and in case of failure to pay, creating charge over the suit property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.60 of 2018 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, dated 04.07.2022, partly allowing the appeal and directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- along with interest at 12 % per annum from 26.10.2007 till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization. Challenging the impugned judgment and decree, the first plaintiff 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 specifically held that right of appeal is not automatic and right of appeal is conferred by statute and whe