High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 is limited to substantial questions of law, preventing interference with concurrent factual findings unless substantial issues arise.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.67 of 2015 dated 10.02.2024 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.468 of 2010 dated 02.12.2014 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

2. The appellants are the defendants (hereinafter referred as 'defendants'). The respondents / plaintiffs (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiffs') filed the suit in O.S.No.468 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam against the defendants claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' rights by forming road or forming a layout in the suit property. The defendants have filed their written statement and contested the suit. The learned Additional District Munsif, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2014 granting the permanent injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved by the granting of decree, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.67 of 2015 and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.02.2024 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the defendants have 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. 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.”

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati and others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 has specifically held