The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals under Section 100 is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot reassess factual findings unless a clear error in law has been demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.49 of 2024, dated 18.08.2025, on the file of II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.61 of 2016, dated 30.08.2024, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.61 of 2016, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti to declare that the suit property is his absolute property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and to further declare that the order passed by the Special Officer/DRO (Temple Lands), dated 26.02.2016 in respect of the suit property is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and their men from doing any action in pursuance of the final order passed by the Special Officer/DRO (Temple Lands), dated 26.02.2016.

3. The first defendant and the defendants 2 to 10 filed written statements and contested the suit. The learned District Munsif, Vadipatti, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2024, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.49 of 2024 and the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2025, dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff 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 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.