Back
RUMA PAL, DALVEER BHANDARI
Gurdev Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Kaki – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes the scope of Section 100 CPC post-1976 amendment, limiting interference to substantial questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal. (!) (!) (!) - It reiterates that the court does not sit in appeal over the testator’s decision and that the role is to examine the authenticity and disposition of the last Will, focusing on free and sound disposing mind. (!) (!) (!) - It discusses the requirement that substantial questions of law must be framed at admission and that the High Court must formulate such questions before hearing the appeal, with the appeal heard on those questions. (!) (!) (!) - The decision critiques interferences with concurrent findings of fact in second appeals, especially in Will/estate cases, and sets aside a High Court judgment for not adhering to the defined scope of Section 100 CPC. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.—Leave granted.
2. Judges must administer law according to the provisions of law. It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative intention in the process of adjudication. Justice administered according to individual’s whim, desire, inclination and notion of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos.
3. Indiscriminate and frequent interference under Section 100 C.P.C. in cases which are totally devoid of any substantial question of law is not only against the legislative intention but is also the main cause of huge pendency of second appeals in the High Courts leading to colossal delay in the administration of justice in civil cases in our country.
4. Despite declaration of law in numerous judgments, it is evident that the scope and ambit of Section 100 C.P.C. has not been properly appreciated and applied in a large number of cases. We are, once again making a serious endeavour to discern legislative intention, ambit and scope of interference under Section 100 C.P.C. We plan to carry out this exercise by critically examining important judgments decided before and after 1976 amendment in the Section 100 C.P.C. This effort is made with the h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
