REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL Nos. 3276­3281 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.30383­30388 of 2011)

Chand Kaur (D) Thr.Lrs. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Mehar Kaur (D) Thr.Lrs               ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and  order  dated  23.03.2011  passed  by

the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

in RSA Nos. 2066, 2067, 2068, 2292 and 2294 of

1987.

1

3. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail

for the disposal of these appeals for the reason that

having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

on perusal of the record of the case, we have formed

an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for

deciding the second appeals, out of which these

appeals arise, for their fresh disposal on merits in

accordance with law.

4. The need to remand these cases to the High

Court  is  called  for because we  find that the High

Court though disposed of bunch of second appeals

(RSA Nos.2066 to 2068 of 1987 and RSA 2292 to

2294 of  1987)  but it  did  so  without framing any

substantial question(s) of  law as is required to be

framed  under Section 100 of   the  Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Code”).

2

5. In our opinion,   framing of substantial

question(s) of law in the present appeals was

mandatory because the High Court allowed the

second appeals  and  interfered  in  the  judgment  of

the First Appellate Court, which was impugned in

the second appeals. It is clear from the last

paragraph of the impugned order quoted

hereinbelow:

“However, I am unable to convince myself with the latter part of the judgment of the ld. lower appellate court wherein Chand Kaur was held to be entitled to ½  share of the property of Jaimal, by placing reliance on the judgment delivered in the previous litigation between  Mehar Singh and Chand Kaur.   Once the ld. lower Appellate Court arrived at a specific finding of fact that Chand Kaur was neither the daughter of Santo nor Santo is daughter of Cheta, thus, there was no basis for it to hold that Chand Kaur was entitled to hold half of the property of late  Jaimal.  By placing  reliance  on  the previous judgment, the ld. Lower  Appellate Court went against its own judgment and impliedly admitted that Santo was the daughter of Cheta.  It is obvious that such a status of things cannot co­exist.   By necessary implication, as a result of the finding arrived at by the ld. Lower Appellate

3

Court regarding Santo not being the daughter of Cheta, the entitlement of the property of late Jaimal falls on Mehar Singh and Mehar Kaur in equal shares.

In view of above, RSA Nos.2066, 2067 and 2068 of 1987 filed by Mehar Kaur succeed and RSA Nos.2292, 2293 and 2294 of 1987 filed by Chand Kaur are dismissed.  The findings of the ld. lower Appellate Court are modified to the extent that Mehar Singh and legal heirs of Mehar Kaur are held entitled to succeed to the entire property of late Jaimal Singh in equal shares and the legal heirs of Chand Kaur shall have no right to such property at all.”

6. This Court has consistently held that the High

Court has no jurisdiction to allow the second appeal

without framing  a substantial question  of law as

provided under Section 100 of the Code. In other

words, the  sine qua  non  for allowing the second

appeal is to first frame the substantial question(s) of

law arising in the case and then decide the second

appeal by answering the question(s) framed.(See

Surat Singh(Dead) vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors., (2018)

4

4  SCC  562 and  Vijay  Arjun  Bhagat  &  Ors. vs.

Nana Laxman Tapkire & Ors., (2018) 6 SCC 727).  

7. Since in this case, we find that the High Court

failed to frame any substantial  question either  at

the time of admitting the appeal or before final

hearing and yet proceeded to allow some of the

second appeals in the bunch by modifying the

judgment impugned therein, the High Court

committed jurisdictional error requiring this Court

to interfere.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned

order is  set  aside.  All the  second appeals,  out  of

which these appeals arise, are restored to their

original numbers before the High Court.

9. The High Court will now first frame substantial

question(s) which, according to the appellants of the

5

second appeals, arise in their respective second

appeals.  

10. Since we have  formed an opinion to remand

the case in the light of what is held above, we have

not expressed any opinion on the  merits of the

controversy.  

11. The High Court will accordingly decide the

appeals  on merits  strictly in  accordance with  law

uninfluenced by any observations made in the

impugned order and also in this order.  

                                  .………...................................J.                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                       

   …...……..................................J.              [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; March 28, 2019

6