A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court reviewed its earlier decision in Lehna Singh (D) By Lrs. v. Gurnam Singh (D) By Lrs. & Ors. and clarified the legal parameters governing second appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, as distinct from the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Court determined that the Punjab and Haryana High Court could hear a second appeal under Section 41 without framing a substantial question of law but emphasized that findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court must not be reappreciated in the absence of procedural or jurisdictional error. The review petition was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment, restoring the trial court’s findings, was affirmed. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision that the Will in question was invalid due to suspicious circumstances, rejecting the first appellate court’s contrary decree.

Keywords: Second appeal, Substantial question of law, Will validity, Natural succession, Punjab Courts Act.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgement Cause Title:
  Lehna Singh (D) By Lrs. v. Gurnam Singh (D) By Lrs. & Ors.

• ii) Case Number:
  Review Petition (C) No. 1025 of 2019 (arising from Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2014)

• iii) Judgement Date:
  16 May 2024

• iv) Court:
  Supreme Court of India

• v) Quorum:
  Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

• vi) Author:
  Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

• vii) Citation:
  [2024] 6 S.C.R. 390 : 2024 INSC 429

• viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
  Section 100, CPC, 1908; Section 41, Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
  None explicitly overruled in this case.

• x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
  Civil Procedure, Property Law, Inheritance Law, Wills and Succession.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case revolves around the validity of a Will, a dispute over property rights, and the scope of second appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The plaintiff, Lehna Singh, sought a perpetual injunction against the defendants based on natural succession to the property. The defendant, Gurnam Singh, relied on a contested Will allegedly executed by the deceased owner, Bhagwan Singh. The trial court favored the plaintiff, but the first appellate court decreed joint possession in favor of the defendant. The High Court reinstated the trial court’s decision, leading to the Supreme Court appeal. Upon review, the Court clarified the interpretation of procedural law under Section 41 and upheld the trial court’s findings.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The dispute involves land ownership claimed by the plaintiff, Lehna Singh, through natural succession as the real brother of the deceased, Bhagwan Singh.
2. Bhagwan Singh, unmarried and issueless, purportedly executed two Wills, the latter favoring the defendants.
3. The defendants alleged familial relations through their mother’s remarriage to another husband after the death of the plaintiff’s father.
4. The plaintiff contested the validity of the Will, alleging suspicious circumstances.
5. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the Will invalid. The first appellate court overturned this, granting joint possession to the defendants.
6. The High Court restored the trial court’s decision, prompting the defendants’ appeal to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Can a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act be entertained without framing a substantial question of law?
ii) Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in overturning the first appellate court’s findings?
iii) Was the Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, rendering it invalid?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The petitioners argued that the High Court incorrectly set aside the appellate court’s findings, which were based on evidence and within its jurisdiction.
ii) They contended that the High Court misapplied Section 100 CPC in contravention of the precedent established in Pankajakshi v. Chandrika [(2016) 6 SCC 157].
iii) The petitioners emphasized that the Will was duly executed, witnessed, and registered, thus meeting legal requirements.
iv) They argued that the plaintiff had not substantiated claims of suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will’s execution.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The respondents supported the High Court’s finding, arguing that the Will was invalid due to glaring inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances.
ii) They highlighted the testator’s dependence on the plaintiff and the lack of explanation for disinheriting him.
iii) They argued that the appellate court failed to meet the reasoning of the trial court in declaring the Will invalid.
iv) The respondents asserted that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction under Section 41, distinct from Section 100 CPC.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act does not require framing of substantial questions of law, unlike Section 100 CPC.
• Findings of fact by the trial court should not be overturned by the first appellate court without cogent reasons.
• The trial court correctly found the Will invalid due to suspicious circumstances.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Courts must respect the distinct jurisdictional scopes of Section 41 and Section 100 CPC.
• Procedural safeguards in Will execution are critical to dispel any suspicions.

c. Guidelines

1. Findings of fact should not be revisited in the absence of jurisdictional or procedural error.
2. A Will’s validity must be examined for compliance with legal formalities and absence of undue influence or suspicious circumstances.
3. Section 41 second appeals do not require framing of substantial questions of law but demand respect for lower courts’ factual determinations.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reiterates the necessity of maintaining procedural boundaries in appellate jurisdiction and underscores the importance of addressing trial court findings in appellate reviews. It serves as a precedent for the interpretation of Section 41 vis-à-vis Section 100 CPC, ensuring judicial consistency in second appeal matters.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• Pankajakshi v. Chandrika [(2016) 6 SCC 157]
• Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann [(2001) 4 SCC 262]
• Chintamani Ammal v. Nandagopal Gounder [(2007) 4 SCC 163]

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Punjab Courts Act, 1918