The High Court's jurisdiction in a Section 100 appeal is confined to substantial questions of law, prohibiting re-evaluation of factual findings made by lower courts.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.4 of 2015 dated 19.08.2025 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.60 of 2010 and the counter claim filed therein dated 12.08.2014 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti.

2. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 5. The first respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.60 of 2010 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 and their men from in any manner irrigating Items 1 and 2 of the suit properties once in three days in pursuance of his 1/3^rd share in the well situated in Item No.3 of the suit properties, and for a further permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 from taking the electricity service connection attached to the suit well for drawing water from their bore well. The defendants filed a written statement along with a counter claim seeking a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff and his men from obstructing the defendants 1 to 5 from taking water from the suit well through the electricity service connection to their lands, and also for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff and his men from interfering with their proposal to shift electricity service connection No.118 attached to the suit well to another place through a changeover switch.

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

4. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree dated 12.08.2014 granting the permanent injunction as prayed by the plaintiff and dismissing the counter claim. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.4 of 2015 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Theni, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.08.2025 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the first appeal, the defendants 1 to 5 have preferred the present Second Appeal.

5. 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