The court confirmed that appellate courts are restricted to substantial questions of law and cannot re-evaluate factual findings established in lower courts.

COMMON JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

These Second Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decrees made in A.S.No.60 of 2017 and A.S.No.73 of 2019, dated 13.09.2023, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchendur, partly reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.156 of 2009, dated 31.03.2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchendur.

2. The legal heirs of the deceased sole defendant are the appellants. The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.156 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur against the deceased defendant D.Muthammal to declare that the suit property is belonging to her and for recovery of possession. The original defendant filed a written statement cum counter claim claiming the relief of specific performance.

3. The learned District Munsif, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011, dismissing the suit as well as the counter claim. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.60 of 2017 and the defendant, challenging the dismissal of the counter claim, filed an appeal in A.S.No.73 of 2019 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchendur, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed a common judgment dated 13.09.2023, partly allowing the appeal and thereby setting aside the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit and granted the reliefs of declaration and possession to the plaintiff. The first appellate Judge confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in rejecting the counter claim. After disposal of the first appeal, the sole defendant had died. Challenging the common judgment and decrees of the first appellate Court, the legal heirs of the sole defendant have filed 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 qu