[2025:RJ-JP:35872] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 275/2024 1. Nanagram (Since Deceased) 1/1. Prabhudayal S/o Late Nanagram 1/2. Raghuveer S/o Late Nanagram 1/3. Kamod W/o Laxman S/o Nanagram 1/4. Bhawani Shankar S/o Late Laxman, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Kamod 1/5. Ankit S/o Late Laxman, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Kamod 1/6. Om Prakash Late Nanagram All Resident Of Aabhaneri, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. 1/7. Mamta D/o Late Nanagram, W/o Harisingh, Resident Of Aabhaneri, Presently Resident Of Rajaheda, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. ----Appellants Versus 1. 1/1 1/2 1/3. 1/4 1/5. Ramswaroop, (Since Deceased). Shanti Devi W/o Ramswaroop, Babulal S/o Ramswaroop, Ashok S/o Ramswaroop, Girraj S/o Ramswaroop, Mukesh S/o Ramswaroop, 2. Mst. Keshar Devi W/o Madanlal, 3. Jagdish S/o Madanlal, 4. Bablu S/o Madan Lal, 5. Ramdhan S/o Ramchndra, 6. Shivlal S/o Gyarsilal 6/1. Sona Devi W/o Shivlal, 6/2. Narayan Gurjar S/o Shivlal, 6/3. Shila Devi D/o Shivlal, 6/4. Choti Devi D/o Shivlal, 6/5. Kanpori Devi D/o Shivlal, Respondent No. 2 to 6 Resident of Aabhaneri, Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:35872] (2 of 6) [CSA-275/2024] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pawan Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mr. Ramesh Chandra Kumawat, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 08/09/2025 ;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&1] ckanhdqbZ ftyk nkSlk }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 12@2023 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 27-03-2024 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@oknh ¼ ftls vkxs **oknh** dgk tk,xk½ dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ofj"B flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ckanhdqbZ ftyk nkSlk }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 02@2004 esa ikfjr fu.kZ;@fMdzh fnukad 30-05-2023 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls oknh dk okn ckcr~ fodz; vuqca/k dh fofufnZ"V vuqikyuk o i'pkrorhZ fodz; i= dks fujLr fd;s tkus [kkfjt djrs gq, izfroknh la[;k&2 Jherh dslh mQZ dslj nsoh ds fo:) izkIr'kqnk 31]000@&:i;s dh jkf'k 06 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr oknh@vihykFkhZ dks ykSVk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ@oknh dk fuosnu gS fd izfroknh la[;k&1 jkeLo:i }kjk izfroknh la[;k&2 Jherh dslj nsoh ds i{k esa fookfnr Hkwfe dk fodz; vuqca/k fnukad 15-06-2001 dks fu"Ikkfnr gksuk Jherh dslj nsoh }kjk oknh ukuxjke ds i{k esa fnukad 14-07-2003 dks fodz; vuqca/k fu"Ikkfnr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ekuk x;k gSA blds ckotwn fofufnZ"V vuqikyuk dk vkns'k fopkj.k ;k vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ugha fn;k x;k gSA ;g nksuksa fu.kZ; rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr gS vkSj vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k dk fuosnu gS fd Jherh dslj nsoh ds i{k esa vf/kdre fnukad 15-06-2001 dk fodz; vuqca/k Fkk] LokfeRo dk varj.k] iathd`r nLrkost ugha gksus ls] ugha gks [2025:RJ-JP:35872] (3 of 6) [CSA-275/2024] ik;k Fkk] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa Jherh dslj nsoh dks ;g laifRr varfjr djus dk vf/kdkj gh ugha Fkk vkSj ;gh fu"d"kZ nsrs gq, nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oknh dk nkok [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd orZeku ekeys esa leorhZ fu"d"kZ nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dk jgk gS] fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUrxZzLr ugha gSA var esa ;g f}rh; vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA geusa nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA bl vihy esa ;g rF;kRed fLFkfr izdV gqbZ gS fd dfFkr :i ls jkeLo:i izfroknh la[;k&1 }kjk viuh Hkwfe dk ,d Hkkx Jherh dslj nsoh dks fnukad 15-06-2001 dks fodz; vuqca/k ds ek/;e ls nLrkost fu"ikfnr djrs gq, laifRr dk dCtk lksaik ftlesa 30]000@&:i;s dh jkf'k vafdr gqbZ gSA Jherh dslj nsoh ds i{k esa mijksDr fodz; vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij vf/kdre fofufnZ"V vuqikyuk dk vf/kdkj mRiUu gqvk Fkk] laifRr dk varj.k ugha gks ik;kA Jherh dslj nsoh }kjk fnukad 14-07-2003 dks oknh ukuxjke ds i{k esa tks fodz; vuqca/k fd;k gS ml le; rd Hkh dslj nsoh ds i{k esa laifRr ds varj.k ds laca/k esa dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk vkSj ;gh fu"d"kZ fo}ku fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk nsrs gq, Jherh dslj nsoh izfroknh la[;k&2 }kjk tks izfrQy jkf'k izkIr dh x;h gS og C;kt lfgr oknh@vihykFkhZ dks ykSVk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gSA geus nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls j[ks x;s rdksZa o fordksZa ij fopkj fd;k o miyC/k vfHkys[k dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu o ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA 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 \ nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohd`fr 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 n`f"Vxr ugha gksrk gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk [2025:RJ-JP:35872] (4 of 6) [CSA-275/2024] 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 gSA 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 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] Lohd`fr ,oa fof/k dk lgh izdkj ls foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gSA 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 [2025:RJ-JP:35872] (5 of 6) [CSA-275/2024] 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:35872] (6 of 6) [CSA-275/2024] 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 tks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gS mlds 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 Murari Lal Sharma /12