The High Court dismissed a second appeal against concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding a partition suit. Relying on Section 100 CPC and Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that no substantial question of law was formulated, and there was no interference with the lower courts' judicial discretion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:36619]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 279/2025
8/5. Prem Devi W/o Rajendra, Aged About 46 Years, D/o Ratanlal, R/o Opp. Police Station, Village Barbadva, Tehsil Deedwana,
8/6. Sunita Devi W/o Ramniwas, Aged About 43 Years, D/o Ratanlal R/o Village Suthoth Tehsil Laxmangarh,
8/7. Usha Devi W/o Jagdish, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gram Sarkari Tanki Ke Pass, Tehsil Sujangarh,
8/8. Sudha Devi W/o Sitaram, Aged About 34 Years, D/o Ratanlal, R/o Aathuna Mohalla, Ratangarh, Tehsil Laxmanagarh.
[2025:RJ-JP:36619]
(2 of 6)
[CSA-279/2025]
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Saini, Adv. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jyoti Swami, Adv. Mr. Abhi Goyal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Judgment / Order
10/09/2025
[email protected] }kjk ;g f}rh; vihy /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lhds rgr fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] Qrsgiqj 'ks[kkokVh }kjk fu;fer nhokuh vihy la[;k&01@2023 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 02-04-2025 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlds ek/;e ls [email protected] dh vihy vLohdkj dj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] Qrsgiqj] ftyk&lhdj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k&31@2012 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 18-11-2022 dh iqf"V dh xbZ] ftlds ek/;e ls oknhx.k@izR;FkhZx.k ds i{k esa rFkk [email protected] ds fo:) fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj ds fu"dklu dh fMØh o e/;orhZ ds ykHk dh fMØh ikfjr dh xbZA
lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknhx.k@izR;FkhZx.k }kjk vihykFkhZx.k@ izfroknhx.k dks oknxzLr ifjlj esa fdjk;snkj gksuk crkrs gq, ;g vfHkdfFkr
(3 of 6) [CSA-279/2025]
[2025:RJ-JP:36619]
fd;k fd fooknxzLr ifjlj ds laca/k esa jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 ds izko/kku vkd`"V ugha gksrs gSa] laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA [email protected] dks /kkjk 106 laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e dk uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k] tks mls rkehy gks pqdk gS vkSj rn~uqlkj fnukad 31-01-2012 dh e/;jkf= ls fdjk;snkjh lekIr gks pqdh gS ijarq ifjlj [kkyh dj dCtk ugha laHkyk;k gSA
[email protected] dh vksj ls fdjk;snkjh ds rF; dks fooknjfgr gksuk crk;k ijarq 'ks"k vfHkdFkuksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, okn [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk okn ckn fopkj.k fMØh fd;k x;k] ftlds fo:) izLrqr vihy Hkh [kkfjt gqbZ gSA
fo}ku vf/koDrk [email protected] dk fuosnu gS fd orZeku ekeys esa Hkw&Lokeh o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k LFkkfir ugha gS ysfdu bl rF; ij xkSj fd;s fcuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fu"dklu dh fMØh ikfjr dh gS] tks fof/klEer ugha gSA
fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k@izR;FkhZx.k dk fuosnu gS fd fdjk;snkjh dk rF; fookfnr ugha gS] uksfVl lE;d :i ls [email protected] ij rkehy gks pqdk FkkA nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dk leorhZ fu"d"kZ o fu.kZ; gS rFkk f}rh; vihy ds ekeys esa iqu% lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k o foospu vuqKs; ugha gS] var esa vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls j[ks x, rdksZ o fordksZa ij fopkj fd;k o miyC/k vfHkys[k dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu o ifj'khyu fd;k x;k A gLrxr f}rh; flfoy vihy dh xzkg~;rk ds izdze ij ;g fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gksrk gS fd D;k bl f}rh; flfoy vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUrfuZfgr gS vFkok ugha \
[2025:RJ-JP:36619]
[CSA-279/2025]
(4 of 6)
bl laca/k esa Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 380 ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 (7) SCC 641 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS fd f}rh; vihy esa rF;ksa ds fcUnq ij lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k o iqu% fo'ys"k.k vuqKs; ugha gS rFkk ewy :i ls tgka fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUrxZzLr gks] mu ekeyksa esa /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- ds vuqlkj f}rh; vihy esa mPp U;k;ky; viuh {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx dj ldrk gS] bl fu.kZ; dk lqlaxr Hkkx fuEukuqlkj gS&
"Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below and/or the first appellate court and if the first appellate court has exercised its
[2025:RJ-JP:36619]
[CSA-279/2025]
(5 of 6)
discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini [Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 500] , despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the first appellate court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law."
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
[2025:RJ-JP:36619]
[CSA-279/2025]
(6 of 6)
last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties......"
mijksDr U;kf;d n"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk rFkk f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi vkfn ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh o lk{; dk iqu% /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ls Li"V gksrk gS fd nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohdfr dh vuns[kh dh gks ;k tks rF; vfHkys[k ij miyC/k ugha gS] ml ij fopkj fd;k gks ;k lkfcr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ xyr bUQjUl gks] ,slk n`f"Vxr ugha gksrk gS] fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk lgh :i ls fo'ys"k.k o foospu fd;k gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gS] bl izdkj leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ jgk gaS] blfy, mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ fof/klEer vk/kkj ugha gS A
vr% nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk mDr lEcU/k esa vfHkfyf[kr leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kksZa esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk ugha gksus ls o bl f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vFkok fof/k dk dksbZ lkjHkwr iz'u ugha gksus ls ;g f}rh; vihy xzg.kkFkZ Lrj ij gh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] tks ,rn~}kjk fujLr dh tkrh gSA
LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
DINESH KUMAWAT /93
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law exists to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal?
Whether the courts below ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence regarding the partition suit?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr.Relied on¶42
AIR 2008 SC 380 · Who else cites this
Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna SinghRelied on¶43
2019 (7) SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy SarojiniReferred¶48
Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 · Who else cites this
Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.RsRelied on¶50
AIR 2001 SC 965 · Who else cites this
Guran Ditta v. T. Ram DittaReferred¶52
AIR 1928 PC 172 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukesh @ Rakesh
Jeetu @ Jitendra
Nathi
Sheela
Mamta
Suresh Kumar Tailor
Uma Shanker Vyas
Dinesh Kumawat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
