S. SUBRAMANIAN versus S. RAMASAMY ETC. ETC.

S. SUBRAMANIAN versus S. RAMASAMY ETC. ETC.

The High Court erred in exercising Section 100 CPC by re-appreciating the entire evidence and substituting its own findings of fact; a second appeal is maintainable only on a substantial question of law and the High Court cannot upset concurrent findings of fact of trial and first appellate courts unless those conclusions are contrary to mandatory law, contradictory to Apex Court precedent, or based on inadmissible or no evidence; on merits, the evidence including settlement deeds and will supported the conclusion that the suit properties were self-acquired and were not blended into the joint family estate, therefore the High Court’s decree for partition was set aside and the trial court...

Parties
Appellant (original Defendant): S. Subramanian; Respondent (original Plaintiff): S. Ramasamy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (second Appeal Under Section 100 Cpc) / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Second Appeal, Re Appreciation of Evidence, Blending of Self Acquired Property Into Joint Family Property, Partition, Injunction, Admissibility of Documentary Evidence
Civil Procedure Property Law Family Law Hindu Law Second Appeal Re Appreciation of Evidence Blending of Self Acquired Property Into Joint Family Property Partition +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Subramanian

Appellant (original Defendant)

S. Ramasamy

Respondent (original Plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (second Appeal Under Section 100 Cpc) / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, can re-appreciate the entire evidence and substitute its own findings of fact
  2. 2 Whether there was blending of the father’s self-acquired properties into the joint family estate rendering them joint family property
  3. 3 Whether the substantial questions of law for entertaining a second appeal under Section 100 CPC were correctly framed

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in exercising Section 100 CPC by re-appreciating the entire evidence and substituting its own findings of fact; a second appeal is maintainable only on a substantial question of law and the High Court cannot upset concurrent findings of fact of trial and first appellate courts unless those conclusions are contrary to mandatory law, contradictory to Apex Court precedent, or based on inadmissible or no evidence; on merits, the evidence including settlement deeds and will supported the conclusion that the suit properties were self-acquired and were not blended into the joint family estate, therefore the High Court’s decree for partition was set aside and the trial court...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court judgment and order dated 14.06.2013 in Second Appeal Nos. 4 & 5 of 2009 quashed and set aside
  • Common judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suits restored