State of Haryana v. Harnam Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors.
Background
One Harnam Singh claimed ownership of agricultural land in Haryana based on a Will allegedly executed in his favour by Kishan Singh, who died without any spouse or children and was not related to him by blood. The State, applying the doctrine of escheat (property reverting to the State when there is no legal heir), had mutated the land in its own name after an authority doubted the Will's genuineness. Both the trial court and the first appellate court disbelieved the Will, citing an unmatched thumb impression and inconsistent witness accounts, and dismissed Harnam Singh's suit, but the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed this and held the Will proved.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a second appeal only on a genuine "question of law," not a fresh re-appreciation of facts. Here the High Court had framed its question in a way that wrongly presumed the Will's genuineness was already a settled legal point, when in truth both fact-finding courts below had carefully examined the evidence, including the unmatched thumb impression and contradictions among the attesting witnesses, and found the Will not proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Since no perversity was found in those concurrent factual findings, the Supreme Court restored the trial court and first appellate court's judgments dismissing the suit, while leaving open the separate question of rival claims by Kishan Singh's nephews to be pursued in fresh proceedings if they wished.
Lesson Learnt
A High Court hearing a second appeal cannot re-examine settled facts just by dressing up a factual dispute as a "question of law"; where two courts below have carefully and consistently found a Will not genuinely proved, that finding will not lightly be disturbed.