<\/p>\n
Overview<\/b><\/p>\n
In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether a Second Appeal can be decided by a High Court without first framing substantial questions of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also considered whether a registered sale deed is required to be proved by examining an attesting witness under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The dispute arose from rival claims over immovable property and conflicted findings by the courts below.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the Second Appeal and had applied the law relating to the proof of registered sale deeds in an incorrect manner.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Facts of the Case<\/b><\/p>\n The dispute was related to 13 cents of land originally partitioned among the family members in 1978. Under the partition, one part was allotted to Rajeswari, who executed a registered sale deed in favour of Vanajakshi. Following which Vanajakshi, together with the remaining co-owners, sold the entire property to the original plaintiff through another registered sale deed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Several years later, Rajeswari executed another sale deed in favour of the first appellant in respect of the same portion of land. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the appellants entered the property in an unlawful manner and started construction despite having no valid title. A civil suit was therefore filed seeking the recovery of possession, declaration of title and cancellation of the subsequent sale deed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree after holding that the execution of the earlier sale deed had not been proved properly.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In the Second Appeal, the High Court restored the findings of the Trial Court while observing that the execution of the earlier sale deed was not specifically denied in the manner as stated under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal Issues<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decision<\/b><\/p>\n The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Court held that framing substantial questions of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a mandatory requirement before a High Court exercises jurisdiction in a Second Appeal. Since no such questions were framed, the judgment of the High Court was unsustainable.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It was further clarified by the Court that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only to the documents which are required by law to be attested. As a registered sale deed does not fall within that category under the Transfer of Property Act, its execution is not required to be proved by examining an attesting witness.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Court also observed that proviso to Section 68 cannot be interpreted in such a manner that the main provision is ignored or is extended to documents outside its scope.<\/span><\/p>\n Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh consideration after framing the substantial questions of law, with request to dispose of the appeal within three months.<\/span><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Veronica & Anr.\u00a0 [Appellants(s) ]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 Rudrayani Devaki(D) through LRs. S. Satha Kumar & Ors.\u00a0 [Respondent(s)] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6526 OF 2024 (@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27109\/2018) (DB, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.) Overview In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether a Second Appeal can be decided by a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3862,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3860","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3860"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3860\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3864,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3860\/revisions\/3864"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3862"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n