UMA PANDEY & ANR.versusMUNNA PANDEY & ORS.

1056                      [2018]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   3 S.C.R. 1056                  [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A                            UMA PANDEY & ANR.
                                           v.
                            MUNNA PANDEY & ORS.
                           (Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 2018)
 B                                 APRIL 09, 2018
         [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
              Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal
       involving substantial question of law, dismissed in limine – Propriety
       of – Appellants-plaintiffs filed suit against respondents-defendants
 C
       for partition and separate possession of the suit land – Suit decreed
       by Trial Court – Order set aside by First Appellate Court – Second
       appeal filed by appellant dismissed by High Court – Held: High
       Court erred in dismissing the second appeal in limine on the ground
       that it did not involve any substantial question(s) of law – Document
 D     (Ex-A) filed by respondents was relied on by the Courts below for
       deciding the rights of the parties – Interpretation of any document
       including its contents or its admissibility in evidence or its effect on
       the rights of the parties to the lis constitutes a substantial question(s)
       of law within the meaning of s.100 – Appeal did involve substantial
       question(s) of law within the meaning of s.100 and, therefore, it
 E
       should have been admitted for final hearing on the substantial
       question(s) of law arising in the case – Impugned judgment set aside
       – Appeal remanded to High Court for decision on merits on the
       substantial questions of law framed.
             Allowing the appeal, the Court
 F
             HELD: 1.1 The High Court erred in dismissing the second
       appeal in limine on the ground that it did not involve any
       substantial question(s) of law. The appeal did involve substantial
       question(s) of law within the meaning of Section 100, CPC and,
       therefore, it should have been admitted for final hearing on the
 G     substantial question(s) of law arising in the case. It is not in dispute
       that the defendants (respondents) filed one document (EX-A)-
       (Annexure-P-1 of SLP). This document was relied on and
       appreciated by the two Courts below for deciding the rights of

 H
                                         1056
              UMA PANDEY v. MUNNA PANDEY                               1057


the parties. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the First            A
Appellate Court reversed it on appreciating the evidence
including EX-A. It is a settled principle of law that interpretation
of any document including its contents or its admissibility in
evidence or its effect on the rights of the parties to the Lis
constitutes a substantial question(s) of law within the meaning of
                                                                       B
Section 100, CPC. [Paras 12-15][1059-D-G]
      1.2 Whenever such question arises in the second appeal at
the instance of the appellant, it deserves admission on framing
appropriate substantial question(s) on such questions to enable
the High Court to decide the appeal on merits bi-party.[Para
16][1059-H]                                                            C

     1.3 The following substantial questions of law arise in the
second appeal.
       1. Whether findings recorded by the first Appellate court
on Ex-A for allowing the defendants’ first appeal and, in              D
consequence, reversing the judgment/decree of the trial court is
legally and factually sustainable?
      2. What is the true nature of Ex-A? Can it be termed as
“partition deed” or a document recognizing a factum of partition
already effected between the parties in relation to the suit land?     E
     3. Whether Ex-A binds the plaintiff’s and, if so, how and to
what extent?
      4. Whether Ex-A requires registration and, if so, its effect?
       5. Since Ex-A was exhibited in evidence without any
                                                                       F
objection, whether any objection about its admissibility or legality
can now be raised by the appellants in second appeal and, if so,
its effect? [Para 20][1060-C-F]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3657
of 2018.
                                                                       G
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in S. A. No. 255 of 2008.
      Manan Kr. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Brahma
Kr. Pathak, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Advs. for the Appellants.
                                                                       H
1058             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
             2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the final judgment
       and order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
       Patna in Second Appeal No.255 of 2008 whereby the High Court
 B     dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellants herein in limine and
       affirmed the judgment/decree dated 14.07.2008 passed by the 1st
       Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No. 77/
       2005/06 of 2007 which arose out of the judgment dated 12.07.2005 and
       decree dated 23.07.2005 passed by the Sub-Judge-V, Gopalganj in Title
 C     Suit No. 21 of 1993.
              3. The issue involved in the appeal lies in a narrow compass so
       also the facts involved in the appeal are short. They are stated hereinbelow
       to appreciate the issue.
             4. The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondents are
 D     the defendants in a civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
             5. The appellants and the respondents are members of one family
       and are related to one another.
              6. The appellants filed a civil suit being Title Suit No.21/1993 against
       the respondents in the Court of Sub-Judge V, Gopalganj claiming partition
 E
       and separate possession of agriculture lands as detailed in the schedule
       appended to the plaint.
              7. According to the appellants, the lands were ancestral in the
       hands of the parties to the suit and being members of family, they were
       entitled to claim their share in the suit lands qua the respondents
 F
       (defendants). It was, inter alia, on this assertion the appellants filed a
       suit for partition and separate possession of the suit land of their separate
       shares against the respondents (defendants).
              8. The respondents contested the suit and denied the appellants’
       claim in the written statement on several grounds on facts and in law.
 G     Parties went to trial. The issues were framed. Documents were filed
       and oral evidence was adduced.
             9. The Trial Court decreed the appellants’ suit. The respondents
       (defendants) felt aggrieved and filed first appeal. The First Appellate
       Court allowed the defendants’ appeal and dismissed the appellants’ suit.
 H
                 UMA PANDEY v. MUNNA PANDEY                                       1059
                  [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

The appellants felt aggrieved and filed second appeal before the High             A
Court. By impugned Judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal in
limine. The High Court held that the second appeal filed by the appellants
(plaintiffs) did not involve any substantial question(s) of law and hence it
was liable to be dismissed in limine. It is against this judgment, the
plaintiffs felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special
                                                                                  B
leave in this Court.
       10. Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel for
the appellants. Despite notice, no one appeared on behalf of respondents.
       11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on
perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal,        C
set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the case
to the High Court for deciding the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs
(appellants herein) afresh on merits on the substantial questions of law
framed by this Court hereinbelow.
      12. In our considered opinion, the High Court erred in dismissing           D
the second appeal in limine on the ground that it did not involve any
substantial question(s) of law.
      13. In our view, the appeal did involve substantial question(s) of
law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and, therefore, it should            E
have been admitted for final hearing on the substantial question(s) of
law arising in the case.
      14. It is not in dispute that the defendants (respondents) filed one
document(EX-A)-(Annexure-P-1 of SLP). This document was relied
on and appreciated by the two Courts below for deciding the rights of             F
the parties. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the First Appellate
Court reversed it on appreciating the evidence including EX-A.
       15. It is a settled principle of law that interpretation of any document
including its contents or its admissibility in evidence or its effect on the
rights of the parties to the Lis constitutes a substantial question(s) of law
                                                                                  G
within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code.
      16. Whenever such question arises in the second appeal at the
instance of the appellant, it deserves admission on framing appropriate
substantial question(s) on such questions to enable the High Court to
decide the appeal on merits bi-party.
                                                                                  H
1060            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A           17. In this case, it was all the more reason for the High Court to
       have admitted the appellants’ second appeal because the Trial Court
       and the First Appellate Court had taken into consideration the document
       - Ex-A for deciding the Lis involved in the case.
              18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we cannot concur with
 B     the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court as, in our
       view, it wrongly dismissed appellants’ second appeal in limine.
              19. In other words, what the High Court ought to have done at the
       time of hearing the second appeal on the question of admission by framing
       substantial question(s) of law arising in the case, the said exercise now
 C     we have to do it while disposing of this appeal.
              20. In our view, the following substantial questions of law arise in
       the second appeal within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code for its
       decision:
             1. Whether findings recorded by the first Appellate court
 D           on Ex-A for allowing the defendants’ first appeal and, in
             consequence, reversing the judgment/decree of the trial
             court is legally and factually sustainable?
             2. What is the true nature of Ex-A? Can it be termed as
             “partition deed” or a document recognizing a factum of
 E           partition already effected between the parties in relation to
             the suit land?
             3. Whether Ex-A binds the plaintiff’s and, if so, how and to
             what extent?
             4. Whether Ex-A requires registration and, if so, its effect?
 F
             5. Since Ex-A was exhibited in evidence without any
             objection, whether any objection about its admissibility or
             legality can now be raised by the appellants in second appeal
             and, if so, its effect?
 G            21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and
       is allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal is remanded to
       the High Court for its decision on merits on the substantial questions of
       law framed by us.
             2. We, however, make it clear that we have not gone into the
 H
               UMA PANDEY v. MUNNA PANDEY                                1061
                [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

merits of the case. The High Court will accordingly decide the appeal    A
on merits strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of our
observations.
      23. Since the appeal is quite old, we request the High Court to
decide the same preferably within six months.
                                                                         B
Divya Pandey                                           Appeal allowed.




                                                                         C




                                                                         D




                                                                         E




                                                                         F




                                                                         G




                                                                         H