Naresh & Ors. v. Hemant & Ors.
Background
Two brothers had jointly purchased land in 1957 and later partitioned other property between themselves in 1952; one brother built a house on the land and remained in exclusive possession until his death. After the other brother also died, his legal heirs sued for partition, claiming a half share based solely on both brothers' names appearing on the 1957 sale deed. The Trial Court and the first Appellate Court both dismissed the suit on concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs' predecessor had never actually contributed to the purchase or been a beneficiary. The Bombay High Court, however, reversed this in a Second Appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded the limited scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, which confines second appeals to substantial questions of law and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or disturbance of concurrent findings of fact. Citing a long line of precedent (including Gurdev Kaur and Madamanchi Ramappa), the Court found the High Court had wrongly invoked the presumption under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act without properly weighing the evidence already considered by two courts below, including an admission that the house had been built solely by one brother. It set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the original Trial Court and first-appellate orders, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, allowing the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
A second appeal to a High Court is not a second chance to re-argue the facts: it is reserved for genuine, substantial questions of law, and concurrent factual findings by two lower courts are ordinarily final.