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.

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