2026 INSC 703
R. Veronica & Anr. v. Rudrayani Devaki (D) through LRs. & Ors.
HEAD NOTES
A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Formulation of substantial question of law — Mandatory.
Held, formulation of substantial question(s) of law is a mandatory pre-condition for entertaining and deciding a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. A judgment rendered without framing such question(s) is vitiated and liable to be set aside.
B. Second Appeal — Jurisdiction of High Court.
Held, the High Court must formulate the substantial question(s) of law before hearing the appeal and dispose of the appeal only on such question(s), except where additional substantial questions are recorded in accordance with the proviso to Section 100(5) CPC. Mere reference to grounds in the memorandum of appeal is insufficient compliance.
C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Registered Sale Deed — Applicability.
Held, Section 68 applies only to documents which are required by law to be attested. A registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act is not a document required by law to be attested; therefore, Section 68 and its proviso have no application to proof of a sale deed.
D. Evidence Act — Proviso to Section 68 — Interpretation.
Held, the proviso to Section 68 merely carves out an exception relating to documents compulsorily required by law to be attested (other than Wills). It cannot be interpreted as creating an independent rule regarding "specific denial" applicable to all registered documents, including sale deeds.
E. Statutory Interpretation — Proviso — Scope.
Held, a proviso qualifies, explains or restricts the main provision and cannot enlarge or travel beyond its scope. The proviso to Section 68 must be read harmoniously with the main provision and cannot extend Section 68 to documents outside its ambit.
F. Sale Deed — Proof — Attesting witness.
Held, since attestation is not mandatory for a sale deed, examination of an attesting witness is not a statutory requirement for proving its execution merely because attesting witnesses happen to have signed the document.
G. High Court — Interpretation of Section 68 — Error of law.
Held, the High Court erred in holding that "specific denial" under the proviso to Section 68 must arise only through an independent suit, counterclaim or separate proceeding instituted by the executant. Such interpretation finds no support either in Section 68 or in settled principles governing proof of documents.
H. Remand — Fresh disposal of Second Appeal.
Held, where the High Court decides a second appeal without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 100 CPC and proceeds on an erroneous interpretation of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, the appropriate course is to set aside the judgment and remit the matter for fresh hearing after framing substantial question(s) of law.
Analysis of Facts
The plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession of immovable property and cancellation of a subsequent sale deed executed by the original owner in favour of the defendants.
The plaintiffs claimed title through a registered sale deed executed in 1978. The defendants disputed the execution and genuineness of that sale deed and relied upon a later sale deed executed in 1996.
The Trial Court decreed the suit.
The First Appellate Court reversed the decree, principally holding that execution of the earlier sale deed had not been satisfactorily proved.
In second appeal, the High Court restored the Trial Court's decree. While doing so, it interpreted the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that the requirement of proving execution through an attesting witness did not arise unless the executant had specifically challenged the document by instituting an independent proceeding.
The Supreme Court found two serious errors in the High Court's judgment: first, the High Court decided the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC; secondly, it wrongly interpreted Section 68 of the Evidence Act as applicable to registered sale deeds. The matter was accordingly remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.
Analysis of Law
The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
Formulation of substantial question(s) of law is mandatory before hearing and deciding a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Failure to formulate such question(s) renders the judgment legally unsustainable.
Section 68 of the Evidence Act applies only to documents which the law requires to be compulsorily attested.
A sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act is not a compulsorily attested document.
Consequently, Section 68 and its proviso have no application to proof of execution of a registered sale deed.
The proviso to Section 68 cannot be interpreted independently so as to extend its operation beyond the main provision.
A proviso merely qualifies or carves out an exception to the principal enactment and cannot enlarge its scope.
The High Court's interpretation that "specific denial" must arise through an independent suit or counterclaim has no statutory basis.
Where the High Court commits both procedural and substantive errors while deciding a second appeal, remand for fresh adjudication is the proper course.
Ratio Decidendi
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be entertained or decided without first formulating substantial question(s) of law, and any judgment rendered in violation of this mandatory requirement is liable to be set aside. Further, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act applies only to documents which are compulsorily required by law to be attested. Since a registered sale deed is not such a document, neither Section 68 nor its proviso governs proof of its execution, and the proviso cannot be construed to create an independent rule regarding "specific denial" applicable to sale deeds.
