High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot re-appreciate evidence absent substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.13 of 2022 dated 04.11.2025 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vedasandur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.20 of 2007 dated 04.01.2020 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vedasandur.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. They filed the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2007 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Vedasandur, claiming the reliefs to declare that the suit properties are exclusively belonging to them and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents / defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the appellants / plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

3. The respondents / defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit.

4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.

5. The learned Principal District Munsif, Vedasandur, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree dated 04.01.2020 granting the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of Items 1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties and dismissed the suit with regard to 2^nd Item of the suit properties. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit with regard to 2^nd Item of the suit properties, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.13 of 2022 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Vedasandur, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.11.2025 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the first appeal, the plaintiffs have preferred the present Second Appeal.

6. 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.”

7. The H