BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 10.02.2026 Delivered on : 26.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR S.A.(MD).No.22 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.775 of 2026 Ravi : Appellant /Vs./

Chidambaram (died)

1.Sivaraj

2.Pushparaj : Respondents P RAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 16.12.2024 made in A.S.No.08 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thuraiyur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 11.08.2022 made in O.S.No.139 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur. For Appellant : Mr.V.V.Sathya

JUDGMENT

The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.08 of 2023, dated 16.12.2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thuraiyur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.139 of 2009, dated 11.08.2002 on the file of the District Musif Court, Thuraiyur.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.139 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur, claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The defendants filed their written submissions and contested the suit.

The learned District Munsif, after framing necessary issues and after full trial passed a judgment and decree, dated 11.08.2002, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2023 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Thuraiyur, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree, dated 16.02.2024, dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff has 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 question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law.”

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 has specifically held that right of appeal is not automatic and right of appeal is conferred by statute and when statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not