Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors v. Arigda Laxmi and Anr. ds iSjk la

Judgment

1. Bhupsingh S/o Late Shri Jainarayan, (Deceased) 1/1. Reshmi Devi W/o Late Shri Bhupsingh, R/o Kotputli, Near Baberwala Marriage Home, Indra Colony, Kotputli, Post Kotputli, District Jaipur. 1/2.

Indrajeet Alias Gopal S/o Late Shri Bupsingh, R/o Kotputli, Near Baberwala Marriage Home, Indra Colony, Kotputli, Post Kotputli, District Jaipur. 1/3. Devshree Alias Madhu W/o Rupesh Kumar D/o Late Shri Bupsingh, R/o Post Shanjahanpur, Near Power House, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan, Shop Jagdamba Automobile, Shanjahanpur, Rupesh Joshishiwal. 1/4. Poonam W/o Umesh D/o Late Shri Bupsingh, R/o Village Post Suthani, Tehsil Baval, District Rewari, Haryana. 1/5. Suresh W/o Vivek D/o Late Shri Bupsingh, R/o Village Post Suthani, Tehsil Baval, District Rewari, Haryana.

2. Ramswaroop S/o Shri Harnarayan, R/o Rajwada (Deceased) 2/1. Dayaram S/o Late Shri Ramswaroop, R/o Rajwada, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar.

3. Susheela W/o Dayaram, (Deceased) 3/1. Suneel S/o Dayaram, R/o Rajwada, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar. 3/2. Ramkishan S/o Dayaram, R/o Rajwada, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohammed Anees, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS [2025:RJ-JP:37286] (2 of 5) [CSA-472/2024] Judgment / Order 15/09/2025 ;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] eq.Mkoj ftyk&vyoj }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 31@2018 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 14-08-2024 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@oknh dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d0[k0½] eq.Mkoj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 34@21@1995 esa ikfjr fu.kZ;@fMdzh fnukad 17-12-2011 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@oknh dk okn ckcr~ LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA f}rh; vihy dks x`g.kkFkZ izdze ij vafre :i ls fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus gsrq lquk x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd bl izdj.k esa iwoZ esa oknh dk okn fnukad 03-11-2004 ds fu.kZ; ds ek/;e ls fMdzh gqvk Fkk] ijUrq fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk fu.kZ; fnukad 30-03-2011 ds ek/;e ls mijksDr fu.kZ;@fMdzh dks vikLr djrs gq, ekeyk iqu% izfrizsf"kr fd;k] ftl ij fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk iqu% fnukad 17-12-2011 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tks miyC/k nLrkosth o ekSf[kd lk{; ds foijhr gSA fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lk{; dk lgh :i ls foospu fd;s fcuk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS tks vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA lquk x;k] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknh rFkk izfroknh dze&1 nksuksa t;ukjk;.k ds iq= gksdj lxs HkkbZ gSa] oknh }kjk ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd oknxzLr lEifRr mudh lkeykrh gS] ysfdu mlds ckotwn izfroknh oknxzLr lEifRr dks vUrfjr djus ij vkeknk gS] bl ckcr~ LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk pkghA tcfd izfroknh i{k }kjk lEifRr dk iwoZ esa gh foHkktu gksuk vfHkdfFkr djrs gq, nkok [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;k] ftldh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gSA [2025:RJ-JP:37286] (3 of 5) [CSA-472/2024] gLrxr f}rh; flfoy vihy dh xzkg~;rk ds izdze ij ;g fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gksrk gS fd D;k bl f}rh; flfoy vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUrfuZfgr gS vFkok ugha \ bl laca/k esa AIR 2008 SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %& "13. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 7 SCC 641 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS fd f}rh; vihy esa rF;ksa ds fcUnq ij lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k o iqu% fo'ys"k.k vuqKs; ugha gS rFkk ewy :i ls tgka fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUrxZzLr gks] mu ekeyksa esa /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- ds vuqlkj f}rh; vihy esa mPp U;k;ky; viuh {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx dj ldrk gS] bl fu.kZ; dk lqlaxr Hkkx fuEukuqlkj gS& "Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to reappreciate 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37286] (4 of 5) [CSA-472/2024] 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 Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini [Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 500] , despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 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." Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %& " 12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying 'question of law', means — of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of 'substantial question of law' by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta [AIR 1928 PC 172 : 55 IA 235] , the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties......" [2025:RJ-JP:37286] (5 of 5) [CSA-472/2024] mijksDr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk rFkk f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi vkfn ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh o lk{; dk iqu% /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ls Li"V gksrk gS fd nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohd`fr dh vuns[kh dh gks ;k tks rF; vfHkys[k ij miyC/k ugha gS] ml ij fopkj fd;k gks ;k lkfcr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ xyr bUQsjsUl gks] ,slk n`f"Vxr ugha gksrk gS] fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk lgh :i ls fo'ys"k.k o foospu fd;k gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gS] bl izdkj leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ jgk gaS] blfy, mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ fof/klEer vk/kkj ugha gS A vr% nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk mDr lEcU/k esa vfHkfyf[kr leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kksZa esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk ugha gksus ls o bl f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vFkok fof/k dk dksbZ lkjHkwr iz'u ugha gksus ls ;g f}rh; vihy xzg.kkFkZ Lrj ij gh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] tks ,rn~}kjk fujLr dh tkrh gSA Mittal /12 (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J