In a second appeal, the High Court cannot re-appreciate factual findings unless a substantial question of law arises. Time spent in legal proceedings before a tribunal lacking jurisdiction is excluded when calculating the limitation period for subsequent litigation.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act - Section 59 - Suit for cancellation of a registered instrument - Period of limitation - Exclusion of time - Time spent in litigating before a forum that lacks jurisdiction may be excluded from the computation of the limitation period for the institution of a civil suit. (Paras 9, 10)

(B) Second Appeal - Scope and ambit - High Court in second appeal is not required to re-appreciate evidence and only has jurisdiction to decide substantial questions of law - Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not interfered with in the absence of perversity. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The litigation arose from a dispute over the title of land, involving the validity of competing registered sale deeds executed over the same property. The contesting parties had previously engaged in litigation before specialized quasi-judicial authorities, which concluded after the authorities were found to lack the requisite jurisdiction. Subsequently, a title suit for the cancellation of the later sale deed was filed.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the lower courts correctly applied legal principles regarding the exclusion of time during which the parties were pursuing their grievances in a forum that lacked jurisdiction. It was held that since the issue was already adjudicated by two lower courts with concurrent findings and no substantial question of law was demonstrated, there was no cause for interference.

Issues: Whether the suit for cancellation of the sale deed was barred by the limitation period and whether a substantial question of law existed to justify intervention in second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The law does not penalize parties for time spent in bona fide pursuit of litigation before an incorrect forum. Furthermore, the appellate court's power in second appeal is restricted to addressing substantial questions of law and cannot be invoked to disturb consistent findings of fact made by the trial and first appellate courts.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of procedural history and appeal context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of rival factual contentions regarding title and possession. (Para 4 , 5)
3. summary of trial and first appellate court findings. (Para 6 , 7)
4. exclusion of time under limitation for period spent in alternate forum. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. absence of substantial question of law warrants appeal dismissal. (Para 11 , 12)

Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 04.09.2009 and decree signed on 14.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.VI, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.136 of 2007 confirming the judgment dated 10.10.2007 and decree signed on 27.11.2007 passed by the learned Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit No.84 of 1999.

3. Title Suit No.84 of 1999 was instituted by the plaintiff/respondents for cancellation of sale-deed dated 07.01.1976 executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and to pass the decree not to effect the title of the plaintiff on the basis of the said sale-deed. The said title suit was decreed vide judgment dated 10.10.2007 and decree signed on 27.11.2007 passed by the learned Munsif, Ranchi on contest and the sale-deed dated 07.01.1976 executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2 was declared null and void. Aggrieved with that judgment, the defendant/ appellant preferred the appeal being Title Appeal No.136 of 2007, which was decided by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.VI, Ranchi dismissing the said appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned Munsif, Ranchi vide judgment dated 04.09.2009.

4. It transpires from the judgments of the learned Courts that the plaintiff’s case as disclosed in the plaint was as under:

The suit property described in the schedule as land situated at Mouja Uska, P.S. Burmu, District- Ranchi measuring 0.73 decimals of plot no.258 in Khata no.1 belonged to Kapil Singh and was auctioned in connection with rent due and thereafter purchased by Debu Sahu as an auction purchaser of the suit property in Rent Execution Case No.13/35-36 and who thereafter inducted Makan Bharti as Raiyat over it. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the said Makan Bharti vide registered sale-deed no.10874 dated 04.08.1973 by paying valuable consideration of Rs.2,000/- to the vendor to give possession thereof to the plaintiff and the plaintiff having acquired perfect title over the suit land is in cultivating possession of the same since then. Defendant no.3 Baijnath Bharti cancelled the previous sale-deed no.10874, dated 04.08.1973 vide cancellation deed no.231 dated 07.01.1976 thereafter sold the suit property to defendant nos. 1 and 2 on the same day by virtue of registered sale-deed no.231 dated 07.01.1976 for a consideration amount of Rs.1,000/-. Subsequent sale-deed no.231 is illegal, void and inoperative in law and without jurisdiction and is not binding upon the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have got no perfect title ownership, they could not come into physical possession of the suit property. The original Raiyat Makan Bharti having remained in possession of the suit property for 30 years and sold it to the plaintiff in the year 1973 and defendant no.3 has no right to cancel the sale-deed no.10874 which was executed and registered by Makan Bharti, who was real owner of the suit property. The plaintiff further purchased the suit property got his name mutated in the office of Circle Officer and has been paying rent to the State. The plaintiff came to know about the sale of the suit property in 1986 when he was dispossessed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and thereafter the plaintiff’s son Bandhna Oraon instituted restoration case against defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the court of Special Regulation Officer, Ranchi which was registered as S.A.R. Case No.153/87-88 and the learn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1430

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSanjay Kumar Dwivedi, JBharat Deo Singh – AppellantVersusPano Devi – RespondentSecond Appeal No. 51 of 2010

In a second appeal, the High Court cannot re-appreciate factual findings unless a substantial question of law arises. Time spent in legal proceedings before a tribunal lacking jurisdiction is excluded when calculating the limitation period for subsequent litigation.

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
Bharat Deo Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pano Devi – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010