Can a High Court Decide a Second Appeal Without Framing a Substantial Question of Law?
Case Name: R. Veronica & Anr. v. Rudrayani Devaki (D) through LRs. S. Satha Kumar & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 14 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 703; Civil Appeal No. 6526 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 27109 of 2018)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
Held: The Supreme Court held that formulation of a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a mandatory precondition for entertaining and deciding a second appeal. A High Court cannot reverse the findings of the First Appellate Court without first framing such question(s) and deciding the appeal on that basis. The Court also clarified that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has no application to a registered sale deed because a sale deed is not a document required by law to be attested. Consequently, the proviso to Section 68 relating to “specific denial” cannot be invoked in disputes concerning proof of execution of a registered sale deed.
Summary: The dispute concerned ownership of a 13-cent property in Kerala. The plaintiffs claimed title under a registered sale deed executed in 1979 after one of the co-owners had earlier transferred her share to another purchaser in 1978. Nearly two decades later, the same co-owner executed another sale deed in favour of the defendants, who allegedly took possession of part of the property and commenced construction. The plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, cancellation of the subsequent sale deed, and consequential injunctions. While the Trial Court decreed the suit, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfactorily prove the earlier sale deed.
The Kerala High Court allowed the second appeal and restored the Trial Court’s decree. In doing so, it interpreted the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act to hold that a registered document need not be proved through an attesting witness unless its execution was specifically denied by the executant through an independent proceeding such as a separate suit or counterclaim. The High Court further observed that a mere denial in the written statement was insufficient to attract the proviso. Based on this interpretation, it concluded that the earlier registered sale deed stood duly proved and restored the plaintiffs’ title.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had committed two fundamental legal errors. First, it had decided the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law as required by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rendering its judgment legally unsustainable. Secondly, the Court held that Section 68 of the Evidence Act itself was inapplicable because a registered sale deed is not a document that the law requires to be attested. Referring to earlier decisions including Hans Raji v. Yosodanand and Bayanabai Kaware v. Rajendra Baburao Dhote, the Court reiterated that the proviso to Section 68 applies only to documents that are compulsorily attestable, such as gift deeds or mortgages, and not to sale deeds. It further cautioned that an erroneous interpretation of the proviso could mislead subordinate courts and therefore required correction even though the matter was being remanded.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Kerala High Court’s judgment, and remitted the second appeal for fresh consideration. It directed the High Court to hear the matter de novo after first formulating the substantial question(s) of law, if any, in accordance with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court requested the High Court to dispose of the second appeal within three months of receipt of the judgment and directed the Registry to circulate a copy of the decision to all High Courts to ensure uniform application of the legal principles governing second appeals and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.