Second appeal against concurrent dismissal of a suit challenging a registered will on grounds that the testator lacked capacity and the property was joint family property. Holding no substantial question of law arose and re-appreciation of evidence was impermissible, the High Court dismissed the appeal at admission stage.
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:36217]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
----Appellants
Versus
(2 of 7)
[2025:RJ-JP:36217]
[CSA-406/2024]
[2025:RJ-JP:36217]
[CSA-406/2024]
| 2025:RJ-JP:36217] | ( | 3 of 7) [CSA-406/202 ----Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. |
Ridhvick Dosi, Adv. |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mr. |
R.K. Daga, Adv. Rahul Chouhan, Adv. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Judgment / Order
09/09/2025
;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- [email protected] ¼vkxs ^^oknhx.k^^ dgk tkosxk½ }kjk fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&2] vtesj }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 06@2017 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 07-08-2024 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls [email protected] dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d0[k0½ vtesj] ftyk&vtesj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 297@1993 esa ikfjr fu.kZ;@fMdzh fnukad 23-04-2010 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls [email protected] dk okn ckcr~ olh;r dks voS/k o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djus rFkk LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA
fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k rFkk izR;[email protected] ¼vkxs ^^izfroknhx.k^^ dgk tkosxk½ dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknhx.k rFkk izfroknhx.k nksuksa gh Lo0 eksVwth ds oa'kt gSa] eksVwth }kjk dfFkr :i ls fnukad 17-04-1963 dks ,d olh;r vius rhu iq= eksgu] mxek rFkk lksgu ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr djkrs gq, iathd`r djk;k ftls eksVwth ds pkSFks iq= NksVw ds fof/kd mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk bl vk/kkj ij pqukSrh nh gS fd olh;r esa mYysf[kr lEifRr eksVwth dks vius firk ls izkIr gqbZ Fkh] vr% la;qDr ifjokj dh Fkh vkSj eksVwth dks bl lEifRr dks olh;r djus dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA ;g Hkh vkifRr yh x;h fd dfFkr olh;r fu"iknu ds le; eksVwth 'kkjhfjd o
[2025:RJ-JP:36217]
[CSA-406/2024]
(4 of 7)
ekufld :i ls LoLFk fpRr ugha FksA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ckn fopkj.k [email protected] dk okn [kkfjt fd;s ftldh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;hA
fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k dk fuosnu gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ;g olh;r /kkjk 90 Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e esa of.kZr mi/kkj.kk ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr ekuh gS] tcfd olh;r ds ekeys esa lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 90 ds izko/kku vkd`"V ugha gksrs gSa vkSj bl laca/k esa olh;r ds lE;d fu"iknu dks izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls izekf.kr fd;k tkuk vko';d Fkk] vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa Ramesh Verma (D) tr. L.Rs. Vs. Lajesh Saxena (D) by L.Rs. and Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 257, Ashutosh Samanta (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi & Ors. AIR (2023) SC 1422 rFkk Banwarilal Vs. Datturam AIR 2012 Raj. 87 izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk lE;d :i ls fof/kd izko/kkuksa ij fopkj ugha dj xaHkhj fof/kd =qfV dkfjr dh gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Ors. Vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by Lrs. 2025 SCC (Online) SC 1488 izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd tgka olh;r iathdr gks rks ,slh olh;r ds ln~Hkkfod gksus dh mi/kkj.kk yh tkosxhA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd olh;r ds vuqizekf.kd lk{kh fu;kt eksgEen dh eR;q gks tkus ls mlds iq= ;klhu ¼Mh-MCyw&4½ }kjk bl olh;r ij vius firk ds gLrk{kj gksuk izekf.kr fd;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu jgk gS fd olh;r fnukad 17-04-1963 dh gS] ftldh tkudkjh 'kq: ls oknh dks Fkh] ysfdu mlds ckotwn fnukad 21-10-1993 dks vFkkZr 30 o"kZ i'pkr okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks ln~Hkkfod ugha gS] vUr esa ;g rdZ fn;k fd fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ leorhZ gS rFkk mBk;s x;s fcUnq f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi esa ugha vkrs gSaA
[2025:RJ-JP:36217]
[CSA-406/2024]
(5 of 7)
nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds izdk'k esa iqu% vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
oknh ds i{k esa vfHkdfFkr vkSj mudh lk{; ds vuqlkj fnukad 17-04-1963 dks olh;r fu"ikfnr gksuk rFkk iathd`r gksuk fooknjfgr gSA oknh dh izFke vkifRr ;g jgh gS fd olh;r esa mYysf[kr lEifRr olh;rdrkZ eksVwth ds firk dh Fkh vkSj eksVwth dks olh;r djus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk] ysfdu mDr lEifRr eksVwth ds firk vtqZu dh jgh gks] ,slh dksbZ lk{; vfHkys[k ij ugha jgh gSA ;klhu ¼Mh-MCyw&4½ us vuqizekf.kr lk{kh vFkkZr vius firk ds gLrk{kjksa dks bl olh;r ij gksuk dFku fd;k gS] nLrkost izekf.kr gS vkSj mijksDr lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks fopkj esa ysus ds mijkUr fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;k gS] ftldh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gSA
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 bUQsjsUl gks] ,slk nf"Vxr ugha gksrk gSA 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 bl laca/k esa AIR 2008 SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
"13. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the
[2025:RJ-JP:36217]
[CSA-406/2024]
(6 of 7)
evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] Lohdfr ,oa fof/k dk lgh izdkj ls foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dj oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd;k gS A f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dks foLrr :i ls iqu% foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dh Hkh vko';drk ugha gS A bl laca/k esa 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 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."
blh izdkj Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
" 12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word
[2025:RJ-JP:36217]
[CSA-406/2024]
(7 of 7)
substantial, as qualifying 'question of law', means — of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of 'substantial question of law' by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta [AIR 1928 PC 172 : 55 IA 235] , the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the 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......"
mYys[kuh; gS fd nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ij vk/kkfjr gSa vkSj bl laca/k esa nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; dk lgh ewY;kadu o fo'ys"k.k fd;k gSA
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
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
Mittal /7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below dismissing the suit challenging a registered will of 17-04-1963 suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference in a second appeal under S
Whether the courts below erred in treating the will as proved without proof of due execution as required under Section 90 of the Evidence Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Verma (D) tr. L.Rs. Vs. Lajesh Saxena (D) by L.Rs. and Ors.Referred
(2017) 1 SCC 257 · Who else cites this
Ashutosh Samanta (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi & Ors.Referred
AIR (2023) SC 1422 · Who else cites this
Banwarilal Vs. DatturamReferred
AIR 2012 Raj. 87 · Who else cites this
Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Ors. Vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by Lrs.Referred
2025 SCC (Online) SC 1488 · Who else cites this
Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr.Relied on¶13
AIR 2008 SC 380 · Who else cites this
Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna SinghRelied on
2019 7 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.RsRelied on¶12
AIR 2001 SC 965 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Panchi Devi W/o Late Chotu
Chogalal S/o Late Chotu
Laxmanlal S/o Late Chotulal
Ranglal S/o Late Chotu
Smt. Bhuri Devi W/o Late Motu
Mohan S/o Late Motu
Uma Shanker Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
