The High Court cannot re-evaluate findings of facts from lower courts without a substantial question of law, affirming the plaintiffs' ownership claims based on valid evidence.

COMMON JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

These Second Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decrees made in A.S.Nos.36, 37, 38 and 39 of 2007, dated 07.08.2023, on the file of the Additional District Court, Paramakudi, confirming the common jundgment and decrees passed in O.S.Nos.47 of 2010, 11 of 2011, 33 of 2011 and 110 of 2012, dated 05.01.2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Paramakudi.

2. One Jothiprakasam, W/o Muthiah, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.33 of 2011 and the second defendant in O.S.No.47 of 2010 is the appellant in S.A. (MD)No.656 of 2025 and S.A.(MD)No.368 of 2025. One Muniasamy, plaintiff in O.S.No.110 of 2012 is the appellant in S.A.(MD)No.407 of 2025. One Muthumanikandan and two others who are the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.11 of 2011 are the appellants in S.A.(MD)No.367 of 2025.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred by the trial Court in its common judgment.

4. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.47 of 2010 filed a suit seeking declaration that the suit property is belonging to them and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The very same plaintiffs in O.S.No.11 of 2011 filed a suit seeking declaration that the sale deeds dated 23.06.2010 executed by the first defendant Muthumanikandan in favour of the second defendant Muniasamy and the third defendant M.Vairamani as null and void. The first defendant in O.S.No.47 of 2010 and the fifth defendant in O.S.No.11 of 2011 Thiru.S.Muthiah filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 2011 claiming partition and allotment of 1/4^th share in the suit property. The second defendant in O.S.No.11 of 2011 filed a suit in O.S.No.110 of 2012 claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The first defendant in O.S.No.47 of 2010, the fourth defendant in O.S.No.11 of 2011, the sixth defendant in O.S.No.33 of 2011 – S.Uthandaraman had remained exparte. The other defendants in all the suits filed their respective written statement and contested the suits.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi, after framing necessary issues in all the suits and after joint trial, passed a common judgment dated 05.01.2017, allowing the suits in O.S.No.47 of 2010 and O.S.No.11 of 2011 granting the reliefs sought for and dismissed the suits in O.S.No.33 of 2011 and O.S.No.110 of 2012. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and decrees, the contested defendants preferred the appeals in A.S.Nos.36 of 2017, 37 of 2017, 38 of 2017 and 39 of 2017 and the learned Additional District Judge, Paramakudi, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2023, dismissing all the appeals and thereby confirming the common judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the impugned common judgment of the first appellate Court, the above Second Appeals came to be filed.

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 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 rem