Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Jurisdiction in Second Appeals: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lehna Singh (D) by LRs. v. Gurnam Singh (D) by LRs. & Ors., addressed a significant issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in second appeals under the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The case involved a dispute over property succession and the validity of a will, leading to a complex legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court for review.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a property dispute between the parties. The plaintiff, Lehna Singh, claimed ownership of the suit land through natural succession. However, the defendants contended that the property was transferred to them through a will allegedly executed by the deceased owner, Bhagwan Singh. The dispute led to multiple rounds of litigation, culminating in a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-quashes-kolkata-municipal-corporations-acquisition-of-property-under-section-352/

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner, representing the defendants, argued that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence and overturning the findings of the First Appellate Court without framing a substantial question of law. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors., which upheld the validity of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, allowing the High Court to exercise broader appellate jurisdiction than under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Respondent’s Argument

The respondents defended the High Court’s judgment, asserting that the appellate court had rightly exercised its powers to rectify errors in the First Appellate Court’s decision. They argued that the First Appellate Court had overlooked crucial evidence and that the will in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The respondents contended that even under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, the High Court had the authority to interfere with erroneous findings of fact.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-hindu-succession-act-landmark-judgment-in-mukatlal-vs-kailash-chand-case/

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court reviewed the legal framework governing second appeals in Punjab and Haryana. It reaffirmed that, under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, the High Court is not required to frame a substantial question of law, unlike in second appeals governed by Section 100 of the CPC. However, it emphasized that the High Court must still exercise its jurisdiction judiciously and avoid reappreciating evidence to substitute its own findings for those of the lower appellate court.

The Court observed:

“The provision contained in Section 41 of the Punjab Act, as reproduced above, does not mandate framing of a substantial question of law for entertaining the second appeal. Therefore, a second appeal under Section 41 of Punjab Act can be entertained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court even without framing a substantial question of law.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/contractual-dispute-in-public-tenders-municipal-committee-katra-vs-ashwani-kumar/

However, the Court also cautioned against excessive interference with factual findings:

“The High Court cannot interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower appellate court, however erroneous the said conclusions may appear to be to the High Court.”

Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had correctly set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, as it had failed to address the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. The Court reinstated the trial court’s decision, which had ruled in favor of the plaintiff based on a detailed examination of the evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in second appeals. While the High Court can entertain appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act without framing a substantial question of law, it must exercise restraint in interfering with factual findings unless there are compelling reasons to do so. This ruling serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving second appeals in Punjab and Haryana.

Petitioner Name: Lehna Singh (D) by LRs..
Respondent Name: Gurnam Singh (D) by LRs. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Place Of Incident: Punjab.
Judgment Date: 16-05-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: lehna-singh-(d)-by-l-vs-gurnam-singh-(d)-by-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-05-2024.pdf