Sursti Alias Vidya Devi and Others vs Sri Avadh Naresh Tewari and Others

Kamal Kishore, J.—This is a Second Civil Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1981 passed by Sri Chandra Bhushan Shah, the then learned 1st Additional District Judge, Faizabad, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by Sri R.C. Pandey, the then learned Civil Judge, Faizabad in Regular Suit No.28 of 1969, which was a suit for cancellation of gift deed and possession.

I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the evidence on record.

No substantial question of law has been framed in this second appeal at the time of its admission on 17.12.1984. Question of law has been rightly not formulated at the time of admission of appeal. The perusal of the memo of appeal shows that there is no question of law which needs formulation and needs to be decided by this court. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Moreover, it has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in AIR 1997 SC 2517, Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait and others, that it is not every question of law that could be permitted to be raised in Second Appeal. The parameters within which a new legal plea could be permitted to be raised are specifically stated in subsection (5) of Section 100 CPC. Under the proviso, the court should be �satisfied� that the case involves a �substantial question of law� and not a mere �question of law�. The reason for permitting the substantial question of law to be raised, should be �recorded� by the Court. It is not any legal plea that could be raised at the stage of Second Appeal. The appeal has no substantial question of law and is liable to be dismissed.

Both the courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact to the effect that Sheo Narain was the exclusive owner of the property in suit and Deo Narain had no concern with any of the property and the impugned gift deed was legal and valid. These concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below are based on evidence on record. These findings of fact recorded by both the courts below are based on evidence on record and they do not call for any interference by this Court in view of recent rulings of Hon''ble Supreme Court as reported in 1999(3) Supreme Court Cases 722; Kondiba Dagadu Kodam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, 2001 AIR (SCW) 2057; Hamida and others v. Md. Khalil, 2001 AIR (SCW) 2295, Chandra Bhan v. Pamma Bai and another and 2001 AIR (SCW) 2290, Kaluram v. Shrinathdas and others.

The Appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Petition dismissed)