High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence In Second Appeal Unless Finding Is Perverse Or Based On Inadmissible Evidence: Himachal Pradesh HC

"Existence of a ‘substantial question of law’ is the sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC," Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are final and cannot be re-agitated in a Second Appeal unless they are demonstrated to be perverse or based on inadmissible evidence.

Justice Romesh Verma held that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC is strictly confined to cases involving a "substantial question of law," and it is not open to the court to re-analyze or re-appreciate evidence.

The appellant, Bisham Lal Garg, challenged concurrent findings of a Trial Court and a District Court which had dismissed his suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. He alleged that one biswa of land was illegally carved out of his holdings in Khasra Nos. 76 and 77 through collusion between the defendant and revenue authorities. The lower courts dismissed the suit after finding that the plaintiff failed to provide concrete evidence to substantiate the claim that the disputed area formed part of his original land.

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether the appellant had raised any "substantial question of law" as opposed to mere questions of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence.

Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC Is Restricted To Substantial Questions Of Law

The Court observed that a Second Appeal is not a matter of right but a right conferred by statute, which must be exercised within the strict boundaries of Section 100 of the CPC. Justice Verma noted that the existence of a substantial question of law is the absolute prerequisite for the High Court to entertain such an appeal. The bench emphasized that the High Court cannot expand the scope of the appeal to re-examine facts already settled by lower courts.

"A second appeal, or for that matter, any appeal is not a matter of right. The right of appeal is conferred by statute. A second appeal only lies on a substantial question of law."

First Appellate Court Is The Final Court Of Fact

The bench clarified that the First Appellate Court serves as the final court of fact. It held that while the High Court can interfere with findings of fact under Section 100 CPC, it can only do so on extremely limited grounds. These grounds include instances where the finding is based on inadmissible evidence, the court has ignored relevant admissible evidence, or the finding is based on a blatant misreading of evidence that results in perversity.

"It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court."

Test For Determining A Substantial Question Of Law

Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Sir Chunilal v. Mehta & Sons Ltd. and the Supreme Court's ruling in Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, the Court outlined the criteria for a substantial question of law. It noted that such a question must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case. A question of law that is fairly arguable or where alternative views are possible qualifies as substantial.

"To be ‘substantial’, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case."

High Court Cannot Interfere With Erroneous Appreciation Of Evidence

The Court further observed that even if the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts appears palpably erroneous, a pure finding of fact remains immune from challenge in a Second Appeal. Justice Verma highlighted that unless the conclusion violates mandatory provisions of law or is arrived at by ignoring material evidence, the High Court must maintain a judicious balance and avoid prolonging litigation.

"A pure finding of fact is not open to challenge in second appeal even if appreciation of evidence is palpably erroneous & finding of fact incorrect."

Appellant Failed To Prove Factual Allegations Of Collusion

Regarding the merits of the dispute, the Court found that the appellant’s case rested on a "bald statement" without substantial corroboration. The record indicated that the plaintiff failed to establish that the 1 biswa of land sold by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2 was actually a part of his Khasra numbers. The Court noted that the appellant could not provide a satisfactory basis for the claim that his land area was reduced by the revenue authorities through collusion.

"All the points raised and urged in the instant Second Appeal are purely question of fact. No question of law much less the substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal."

The High Court concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity in the impugned judgments of the lower courts. Affirming the decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the bench dismissed the appeal, stating that the dispute remained entirely within the realm of factual appreciation.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026