Lehna Singh vs Gurnam Singh - 2024 Supreme(SC) 480

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 480

VIKRAM NATH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Lehna Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gurnam Singh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P S Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Roop Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Avinash Gautam, AOR Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv., Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv., Ms. Apoorva Singh, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope of second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and is framing of a substantial question of law required? What is the proper standard for interfering with findings of fact by the First Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC in a second appeal? What is the test for genuineness of a Will when suspicious circumstances exist, and can mere attestation without enmity suffice to overcome such suspicions?

Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) - (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!)

What is the scope of second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and is framing of a substantial question of law required?

What is the proper standard for interfering with findings of fact by the First Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC in a second appeal?

What is the test for genuineness of a Will when suspicious circumstances exist, and can mere attestation without enmity suffice to overcome such suspicions?

The petitioner has preferred this Review Petition seeking review of the Order dated 13.03.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2014 wherein the present petitioner was the respondent. In the Order under review, the Civil Appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 27.11.2007 in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 2191 of 1985 was set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Sangrur, on 06.06.1985 in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1983 has been restored.

2. In the judgment under review, this Court held that the judgment and decree passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908¹[‘CPC’] on the ground that in exercise of such power, the High Court could not have reappreciated the entire evidence on record to unsettle the finding of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court, by substituting its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court.

3. Basing the judgment rendered in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors., (2016) 6 SCC 157, this Court directed that the review petition be listed before the open Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 480

VIKRAM NATH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRALehna Singh – AppellantVersusGurnam Singh – Respondent

What is the scope of second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and is framing of a substantial question of law required?

What is the proper standard for interfering with findings of fact by the First Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC in a second appeal?

What is the test for genuineness of a Will when suspicious circumstances exist, and can mere attestation without enmity suffice to overcome such suspicions?

Cases Referred (11)

VIKRAM NATH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Lehna Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gurnam Singh – Respondent