The High Court's review in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot re-assess factual findings or interfere with the first appellate court's discretionary decisions.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.68 of 2024, dated 31.07.2025, on the file of IV Additional District Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.494 of 2017, dated 02.02.2024, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thirumangalam.

2. The appellants are the defendants. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.494 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thirumangalam claiming the relief of recovery of possession and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties.

3. Originally, the sole defendant filed a counter claim cum written statement and contested the suit. Pending suit, the sole defendant died and hence, his wife and sons were impleaded as defendants 2 to 6 and subsequently the second defendant also died. The learned Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2024 dismissing the suit as well as counter claim. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs preferred the appeal in A.S.No.68 of 2024 and the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.07.2025 allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit granting the relief of recovery of possession and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and also directed the defendants 3 to 6 to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of judgment. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the defendants 3 to 6 have 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 o