Kalyan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur (D) Thr. LRs. and Anr.
Background
The respondent had purchased a plot of land measuring about 852⅓ square yards by a 1978 sale deed and sued the appellant for declaration of title and possession, alleging the appellant had taken forcible possession of the land. The trial court decreed the suit in the respondent's favour, but the First Appellate Court reversed this after a Local Commissioner's report showed the respondent was actually in possession of a larger area (955 square yards) than she had purchased, and found other irregularities (missing consolidation records, no boundary marker). The High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the First Appellate Court again and restored the decree in the respondent's favour.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in reversing the First Appellate Court, because the First Appellate Court's findings were properly based on an unchallenged Local Commissioner's report and supporting evidence, and the oral testimony relied on by the respondent did not actually establish the claimed encroachment. Crucially, the Court held that the "substantial question of law" the High Court had framed to justify hearing the second appeal was not a real question of law at all, but simply a disputed question of fact, something a second appeal is not meant to re-open. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the First Appellate Court's dismissal of the suit.
Lesson Learnt
A second appeal to a High Court is strictly limited to genuine questions of law: if the real dispute is just about facts (like how much land someone actually possesses), the High Court cannot use the second-appeal route to re-decide that, however the question is dressed up.